Anyone else find irony in someone attacking one's intellect, while using Wikipedia citations?

if you are unwilling to debate, you are. if you chose to believe that scientists are inherently more corrupt than media personalities, then you do.

there's nothing I can do about what you chose to believe.

I try to be intentionally transparent. one of my goals is to use gfy as a tool to teach a higher level of debate and rhetoric. if we webmasters can't learn to debate more effectively, then there's little hope for the less intelligent castes in our society.

I contemplated that irony, and checked the wiki for factualness before posting it.

I warrant that the top two paragraphs are as accurate a representation of the case as one is likely to find in any commonly available media.

I've read 2 of the 4 investigation documents completely, and read snippets from the other two, so I have as reasonable a sense of the issues and findings as one is likley to find in a layperson.

I strongly urge and invite you to find a factual error and demonstrate that my warrant of the wiki's accuracy is mistaken.

no, what you are saying (said) is: "Global warming my ass. I had frost on my car".

I am not saying I believe that we are causing the earth to warm up or if it is just a natural occurrence, either way, 90% of the people don't even understand what global warming is. If i had a penny for every time some idiot says " wow record cold today, so much for global warming". etc... and they have no fucking clue what they are talking about.

it's not circular reasoning. I am using specific rhetorical techniques, but they are not circular reasoning, which has a specific meaning.

I am circling him, as one does in a fight, yes - prompting him to take a strike, which he wisely declined to do.

as for the ball, I am discussing the "ball" in several other conversations at the same time as I was circling PG.

if you care to pick up the ball, i'd be just as happy to debate it with you.

To be quite fair, I wouldn't trust an investigation from a government. Being versed in politics, I'm sure you understand.

I also wouldn't trust an internal investigation from PSU, as they're investigating themselves.

Edit: Also PSU is a publically funded school. It'd be more than foolish of them to out their own, especially with the powers that be bearing down on them in the hopes of kickbacks.

It's circular reasoning, the most common fallacy in debate.

Him giving his stance, granted without citation, was his "strike".

You took his statement, and instead of trying to refute an extremely clear statement, and asked him to prove you wrong that his claim is from an entity other than from the grasp of Murdoch.

Burden of proof was to be on you, and instead you twisted it into leading assumptions which then lead to a leading request all while cloaking your point.

Your intentions were clear, and it was circular reasoning.

I rambled a bit.

Put simply, you relied on your own proposition of your belief that his claim was from the grasp of Murdoch.

which is why I strongly urge your side to conduct it's own investigations, and i strongly hope that further investigations are carried out.

so, what about it - why is your side unwilling to conduct it's own public investigations?

surely given all the emphasis your side places on this issue, someone on your side MUST have investigated, or at least have plans to investigate.

No? Nobody on your side? I wonder why? The emails are in the public domain now, there is nothing preventing your side from examining them and comparing their judgements with teh published investigations, looking for bias. Nothing stopping them from interviewing, nothing stopping them from asking other experts, nothing stopping them from publishing their findings.

Not a thing is stopping them. Perhaps they are waiting for a letter from you, asking why they haven't done so?


---

there is another kind of investogation being carried out by the peer review process within the science community, but it will be several more years before the judgements of that community are known.

in no way shape or form did I rely on that suggestion. My rhetoric was a challenge to the quality of his information, and that challenge stands on its own, and can easily be refuted simply by presenting the quality of the information that he had.

At which point I am free to examine the actual quality of the information presented.

I suggested the murdoch source as editorial comment at the end of my rhetorical presentation.

it is false and either ignorant or malicious for you to claim that i used the
murdorch source comment as a critical element in my debate tactic.

however, I do stand behind my editorial comment. If you seriously believe that he was not influenced by murdochian media rhetoric, I challenge you to present to me an alternative explanation.

then I will happily examine with you the quality of your evidence.

Define "your side" because I'm quite unsure as to what you're referring to.

Talking about the denial of global warming? There's quite a few. Obviously, the largest are energy companies.

Do you even know who funded the CRU during its founding in 71? Do you know who still funds the CRU?

What about Stringer who denied the report's findings saying there's not enough information one way or the other?

Roger Pielke?

I mean, what are you looking for, an entire list? If you're unable to establish contrarian reviews, you're not looking hard enough.

I happily invite you to take his "extremely clear statement" (which was not clear, which he was smart enough to realize), and place it on the table as if it was your own, and I will debate it. again. because I understand that these points have to be hammered home over and over again.

and i would really enjoy having someone on your side present an argument I haven't heard before. new ideas and new arguments are one of the great pleasures debate has to offer.

tell ya what - I'll tie one hand behind my back, just for you. You can bring up any point you like, and I will refrain from asking you to provide it's provenance. No matter what it's source, I will treat it as if it were an argument right from the pages of a source no more biased than scientific american.

that means no mention of murdochian rhetoric on my part, even if its staring us in the face. during this part of the debate.

afterwards I'll point out the provenance of your rhetoric as seems appropriate. editorial comment after a debate is part of the grand tradition, and I wouldn't begrudge you yours.

Prof. Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.

Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference -- an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change -- Prof. Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."

"that you have no real sense of the actual events or issues involved, and haven't really studied it or even thought about it much, and that your sole source of knowledge on the subject comes from well known media sources, particularly from the murdoch media empire."

Look at your following sentence after that.

"prove me wrong."


Circular reasoning.

Don't play daft, please.

Serious lols @ you.

I see you also enjoy ad hom.

You're up to par on your logical fallacies.

its considered critical to provide a source when presenting such information as part of an argument.

for instance, a search with the keyword "professor latif" under google news produces no results which seem applicable, nor do they seem to find a comparative "latif", or indicate that such a person exists.

http://news.google.com/news/search?a...fessor+L atif

it's not unlikley that some professor made some such statement. altho, it doesn't fit the published measurements, and we have to take a look at his source data.

however, that statement, in quotes, when entered into google news, has no results. http://news.google.com/news/search?a...tures+cool.%22

are you sure this event happened recently? do you have better keywords, since you seem determined to make us search rather than providing a source link?

since google doesn't find it, perhaps you have been bamboozled, it would be interesting to examine your source.

BBC is one source.

Latif believes it'll rebound much worse than expected, though.

I thought you would decline.

you also apparently do not understand the meaning of ad hominem.

this is where the arguments of your side always end up on this subject. you don't have a leg to stand on so you back away.

this problem is caused by your reliance on bad sources. there are actually great argumenst that can be made, but you guys never make them, because all the bullets you have were manufactured for you by people who know how to generate emotional hooks but don't understand the science.

I urge you to consider how ypu could make arguments that actually make sense and aren't so easily refuted.

here's a clue - nothing can be done about global warming. it's too late to fix it. use that as the basis of your arguments and you can win, or at least debate to a draw.

Sorry, here it is:
nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=fd981fbc-47e4-4318-9980-ff5d5a2f3c3b

His name is Dr. Mojib Latif, a prize-winning climate and ocean scientist from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at the University of Kiel

He thinks Global Warming is real but that we won't see rising temps for a few decades... lol. :upsidedow

No, I just choose not to debate with someone that clearly uses both selective reasoning and logical fallacies. I presume you don't just sit and talk to walls all day expecting a response, do you?


Now, you're denying the following is Ad hom?

"tell ya what - I'll tie one hand behind my back, just for you."

Let me make it extremely easy for you to understand ad hom.

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

You did it to Green, now you're trying with me.

There's a reason you completely ignored my reply to you supplying exactly what you asked for, reverted to another post of mine and then replied with ad hom.

link? if its from the bbc why didn't google news have it, i wonder?

many of the models describe a high probability of increased cold in northern europe. so his statements make sense if he was talking about a region.

I was just reading about that today.

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press...ures-in-winter

if he is talking about the planet as a whole, the dissonance in measurements has to be explained first.

Because it isn't new news. He probably cut and pasted.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

He's talking global.

Huge guessing game, imo.

then you define the terms and subject of the debate, and I'll abide.

Sure I'm arrogant, but your side has it's own share of dismissive arrogance to explain, if arogance is going to be used as the point of judgement.

you make claims such as "There's a reason you completely ignored my reply to you supplying exactly what you asked for, reverted to another post of mine and replied with ad hom" - yet you dont ever clearly say to me what you want me to argue. For instance, I have no idea what you are saying I ignored, nor do I have any idea of what you think was ad hominem.

My counterargument is, you are being unclear deliberately, because you understand the weaknesses of your own arguments, and dirtying the water is a classic debate tactic when one doubts ones own position.

pick anything, make a clear debateable statement about it, and I'll debate it.

altho, I have to go soon, and probably wont be back till later.

I don't think you understand, still. I've made mention to how you try to debate and clearly your motif is that of logical fallacies.

"No, I just choose not to debate with someone that clearly uses both selective reasoning and logical fallacies. I presume you don't just sit and talk to walls all day expecting a response, do you?"

who cares - we'll all be worm food before climatic catastrophy happens. life isn't forever on this planet, we could wipe ourselves out with nukes, asteroid could crash into us - just a matter of when, musical chairs. doubt anybody here today will exist when the music stops.

there are millions starving and dying on this planet RIGHT NOW - and a tiny % of people care, if they did they'd do something.

Your kids and grand kids might care...

I read this entire thread from Choker to Mutt. I feel like I have lost around 12 iq points.

actually you do know that they used core samples from frozen icebergs to find out the tempurature from 1000, 20000, 100000 years ago right?

whatever you say :glugglug

Retards. Global warming doesnt mean its not going to be cold. Au contraire.

Not that long ago we were told the science was settled by some bloke with a Gulfstream; Things would only get hotter. All the models said this and not a single AGW believing scientist took issue with the high degree of certainty. It now turns out it hasn't got hotter, but now, has in places got colder, lots colder. But now this is proof of nothing or proof warming. If the models are so good and so settled how come they didn't spot it? Given that, exactly how is the science settled?

Maybe there is man made global warming, but the true believers can't just flip flop as needed stating with 100% certainty that an outcome they previously did not predict is now proof of AGW, and their theory is all better now and will henceforth get everything just right.

It feels as if the answer is always AGW, we just need to bash everything else till it fits.

NASA says its the warmest year on record. Interesting. Especially interesting that to do that they use data from ground stations all over the world. Well, not all over the world, they're a little thin on those stations at the top and bottom of the world, so there they use statistics to interpolate the data according to their models. Ruh roh. Ask yourself why do they NOT use satellite data, but prefer sparse hand adjusted data from a shrinking number of ground stations?

And by NASA you mean James Hansen at Goddard Institute for Space Studies - of the hockey stick fame and Gore BFF.

All is not lost though - there IS a theory out there that fits the weather a lot better than the CO2 AGW one - namely that it's the sun wot dun it, mixed in with a few other factors like the spinning top wobble of the planet on its axis and a bit of lunar. Low solar output coincides with low temps and harsh winters. They're still working on the exact how, but the correlation works. Weather forecasters like Piers Corbyn and Joe Bastardi now have a good track record of predicting the weather much further in advance than most other weather services - in the UK the MET office is now beyond useless, predicting only ever hotter winters and summers.

But for the AGWers its very, very important indeed that there's only one driver in the system and that its CO2. If we get the idea that because the weather can be influenced by the sun, then maybe the climate over a longer period of time can be influenced also, then the idea that it's all down to stinky, poisonous plant feeding CO2 goes out of the window.

The current weather does not prove AGW right or wrong, but it does prove - since the models failed to predict it - that other factors are at play.

Earth has been around for what ? Over 4 billions years and WE as humans around for what ? 150 00 years and we have the balls to think that we change the way it reacts ? Modify the climates ?

You people are something hehehehehehehe

If it decides to warm up it WILL
Same goes for cooling down trust me...

Now STFU all of you and go back to work hahahahahaha

yes, now what?

Oh I meant to say that I actually did think that the samples showed a rise in tempurature starting 1900's. I thought this was settled.

:thumbsup
those iceberg core samples must have been taken from thermometers at airports built on icebergs eh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

If you do a google search for global warming my ass, and click images, google says a related search is baby penguin.

What else do you need to know? hehe

nonsense. you can't and won't circle me in a fight or any other circumstance. you can goad, as a child would, but you are not now nor will you ever be my puppet master.

you see things as you want to see them and ignore the billions only where it suits you.

the best part: you think you know my side.

Apparently most people don't know what global warming en tales. You clowns that are talking about the uk lol. The gulf stream has shifted so get used to shitty winters.

Here's really good science based deconstruction of the corruption of climate science, by Lord Christopher Moncton.

Everyone can learn a lot from his work. The most shocking thing is "WHY" they are doing this. It goes far beyond simple profits.

Excerpt:

REVEALED: THE ABJECT CORRUPTION OF CLIMATE SCIENCE

The gallant whistleblower now faces a police investigation at the instigation of the University authorities desperate to look after their own and to divert allegations of criminality elsewhere. His crime? He had revealed what many had long suspected:

* The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia had profited to the tune of at least $20 million in ?research? grants from the Team?s activities.
* The Team had tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the UN?s climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient scientific results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the panel?s conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.
* The Team had conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked wanted the UN?s climate panel to report.
* They had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.
* They had emailed one another about using a ?trick? for the sake of concealing a ?decline? in temperatures in the paleoclimate.
* They had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years. They had admitted that their inability to explain it was ?a travesty?. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public statements that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that ?global warming? science is settled.
* They had interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning on journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists to review their papers.
* They had successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint.
* They had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal?s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and corrupt science for political purposes.
* They had mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had expensively created.
* Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team had committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to destroy computer codes and data that had been legitimately requested by an external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their ?research? was either honest or competent.


PDF here (43 pages):

CLIMATEGATE: CAUGHT GREEN-HANDED! Cold Facts About The Hot Topic Of Global Temperature Change After The ClimateGate Scandal

Yup people are right the term "Global warming" has done so much damage to theenvironmental cause, "Climate change" is waaay more accurate.

big fucking round of applause man

unfortunately, his arrogance precedes any *teaching* and the comment re: transparency is absolutely not true in my experience trying to chat with they guy elsewhere.

You hit a valid point here. The fact is that it's really not important to get into the sex life of the molecules to get a basic understanding of what's going on.

The issue is a controversy. There are scientist that agree and push the "man made global warming" hypothesis and there are scientists that don't agree. Those that don't agree are ignored and not given the air time and attention in the MSM like the ones pushing.

So the establishment with it's "scientific community" comprised only from a portion of the scientists, create a scare and panic over this. Then the smart ass politicians controlled by the financial interests, try to push global carbon tax to try and tax the whole world in the pretext of fighting the almighty nature. In the process make you feel guilty about it and take more of your money. Clever no?

Now it's save the planet from the capitalism. When individual capitalism (the cabal financial elite is taking 50% throughout gov by taxes) is replaces with state capitalism (communism) in which the state takes everything and gives you back 10% maybe to keep you working. In the process you loose all your freedoms and have no other choice but to submit to this tyrannical social order in order to survive. Now the cabal financial elite controls the state and therefore this system is much more beneficial to them but not for us.

This is why they moved/moving production to China, take all the measures to destroy current US system and bring a totalitarian instead. It's a one way trip because people are too brainwashed, ignorant, don't care or simply lazy to do anything about it.

okay, I have a little extra time tonight.

do we want to talk professor Latif?

or climategate?

or something else - put any topic on the table and we can discuss it.

professor Latif is an interesting case. at first I didn't recognize the name because most of the furor regarding his prediction happened over a year ago, and he isn't commonly mentioned these days. but after a few minutes of google I recognized the guy. I'll try to summarise his story.

he's an expert on very long oscillations, called "multidecadal ocsillations or currents", because they take multiple decades to complete. you have these things in the deep ocean and in the upper atmosphere.

his prediction was that the deep ocean multidecadal current was speeding up, which means that the ocean is turning over faster, sucking heat down into the deep ocean. he's not sure why it seems to be speeding up, but theorizes the extra heat is making the giant convection loop of the ocean run faster. but because it runs faster, it could suck heat out of the atmosphere, causing a 20 to 30 year long period of cooler temperatures as the ocean absorbs heat faster.

sounds good right - the ocean sucks up the extra heat.

but, he adds, and this is the part that is left out of the media, after that 20-30 years the current stabilizes in his models and suddenly the atmosphere gets even hotter even faster.

so, according to his theory, global warming is not stopped, unlike what the anti-global-warming media implies - it's just that we can expect a period when it doesn't proceed as fast.

thing is, as far as I can tell, nobody else seems to strongly agree with his theory. he might be right, but nobody is publishing papers with new information supporting the idea.

now for the editorial.

this information about professor Latif's theory is presented by the murdoch media empire and it's followers, and all the astroturfers and think tanks, in a carefully cherry picked and edited form. They IMPLY that Latif has said that global warming isn't happening, when he's not saying that at all. then they have people post and repost partial information like this, to try to game the public debate, and to intentionally or ignorantly muddy the water with false information.

this is typical blackarts rhetoric, the intentional spreading of partial and complete lies and distorted information.

Much ado about nothing:

http://d.imagehost.org/0826/easterbrook_fig5.png

Most of the past 10,000 years has been warmer than it is now. Why all the panic?

CO2 is not a pollutant. We should be spending our time and energy battling real pollutants.

the level of ignorance displayed in this thread is astonishing - you global warming deniers are spoon fed graphs and ideas cooked up in the minds and offices of some very evil and greedy corporate hacks - then unleashed on you poor uneducated suckers through smear syndicates like Fox News.

Wake the fuck up and deprogram you bought and paid for clowns.

looked into it a little more - turns out Latif hasn't published anything on this theory yet, which in the science community means he's not very sure of this theory, AND it means no other climate scientists can legitimately comment on his theory without breaking peer review ethics and protocol.

in science culture, a theory that hasn't been published, based on measurements that haven't been released, can't be discussed officially in the peer-reviewed science journals.

this is related to the one science ethics offense that was decided against the stolen climategate emails - in their private discussions they were sharing measurements taken by a scientist outside their circle, who hadn't given permission for his measurements to be passed around.

by the ethical standards of the science community, that's a violation of the original measuring scientist's right to keep his measurements until he has published. it's kinda like the intellectual property rules of science culture.

I have also read that was one of the reasons, good or bad, that they passively resisted giving up their data to the FOI requests - if it was released, it would destroy the data's usability for publication in the science journals. because science journals dont want to publish data that isn't exclusive, and they will turn down articles that use non-exclusive data, supposedly.

this is one of the aspects of science culture that needs to be talked about. the data needs to be more transparent, and available faster.

anyway, thats why nobody (but the deniers) talks about Latif these days - he hasn't published this theory anywhere in the science journals, so they aren't "allowed" to talk about this theory, until he does publish.

Are you US American ?

Bill8;


PLEASE DON'T TALK ABOUT ETHICAL STANDARDS!

Standards? WTF



No further comment ......