Shub

So, after a careful and honest review of the evidence you concluded that the politics is prior only if you are skeptical. Is that correct?

No, it varies, as I said: money, politics and ignorance, or combinations of same. With fear, of course. Lots of fear. Who, after all, denies the existence of things that make them happy?

Mike

:-)

Thanks for that.

@ Mike Jackson Dec 16, 2011 at 12:38 PM

And [TroyCa]'s not the only name that has gone AWOL lately, as far as I can see. In fact, I don't know why we stay.

As I said (or at least meant to say!) once the zealot has decided to pollute a thread with his pontifications etc. there's very little point in any intelligent person with intellectual integrity deciding to stay.

TroyCa obviously recognized this. As have so many others with more knowledge of the science than you or I (and certainly more knowledge than the zealot!)

In fact, I don't know why we stay.

Tell me about it.

Hilary

You think you are an intelligent person with intellectual integrity do you Hilary?

Dear God.

Troy was muddling. And neither you, nor Mike, nor Shub know enough about this to comment anyway, so stop bluffing.

By all means take your leave. Being spat at by you gives me no pleasure. You NEVER answer a question I put to you, and you know nothing about the science. In short, you've got nothing to say. You bring nothing to the table but malice and bile. This goes equally for Shub and apparently now for the Bluffer King himself, Mike Jackson.

'Intellectual integrity' indeed. You people. You couldn't make it up.

You think you are an intelligent person with intellectual integrity do you Hilary?

Needless to say, that isn't what I wrote in my post; however, for the record - and notwithstanding the zealot's failed mind-reading exercise and futile attempts to discredit those who have found his "arguments" wanting - I have been described as such by people whose opinions I respect, but I couldn't possibly comment ;-)

I do wonder, though, if the zealot will ever learn that no one is under any obligation to answer his questions. Or if he'll ever learn that his temper tantrums and sneer 'n smear "debating" style add nothing of any consequence to any discussion.

Oh, well ... I guess until he does, we're doomed to a virtual diet of disruptive diversions of the zealous kind!

I think "sneer and smear" is a wonderful description but I might suggest "stamp and shout" as an alternative.
I'm also inclined to agree about the mind-reading bit. How on earth he knows what goes on between our ears is a mystery. I suspect it's the usual problem of projecting your own prejudices onto other people.
I thought Troy was fairly clear actually — allowing for the complexity of the subject. I didn't find myself muddled at all.
Though I can see that a committed CO2 fanatic might have been. ;-)

Mike

I thought Troy was fairly clear actually — allowing for the complexity of the subject. I didn't find myself muddled at all.

Then why were you unable to summarise his argument?

You are bluffing. I don't need to be a mind-reader to know that.

Hilary

'Sneer and smear' is all you have ever done in response to me. Your lack of self-awareness no longer astonishes, but it remains distasteful.

BBD
As ever, you totally miss the point.
I am quite happy with my understanding of Troy's argument. One or two minor points I need to check on to be sure I understand them.
I am simply not interested in explaining them to you. As I have already said, do not try to place yourself in loco magistro. I am not your pupil to have explanations of anything demanded of me.
Of course if you don't understand it yourself and ask nicely I might try to help out. You did say something about being muddled.
I fail to understand what you mean by 'bluffing'. I am not trying to convince you of anything, except perhaps that your obsession with CO2 is misguided, but as long as you reject any argument that challenges your belief — as you have done with inter alis Troy's — there is little point in someone with less knowledge than he has trying to change your mind.
So I'm not sure what 'bluff' you're talking about.

Mike

I didn't miss your point. I don't believe you. You are bluffing.

And now waffling.

I'd like to add something substantive to this.

Your pretence is two-fold. First, that you understand the science. Second, that you have seen errors in it that the mainstream has either missed or is covering up.

Two self-aggrandising self-deceptions, one built upon the other.

On this desperately shaky basis, you now feel confident actually to vilify dissenters who are demonstrably better informed than you are (in the present case, me). Far worse, you are spreading your mistaken and confused views to others who also don't understand the science. This virtually ensures that they never will.

Given the gravity of the situation, that is a very serious moral responsibility. Yet you don't even recognise what you are doing. I have to tell you.

More shades of mannianism.

matthu
"Mannianism" doesn't even start to describe it.
The arrogance of the man is breathtaking. There is no point in even trying to engage since he lives in his own echo chamber with his brain wrapped in cotton wool and his mind closer than a steel trap.
Any reply will be filtered through his own bigotry so that any statement will be immediately disbelieved if it doesn't suit his argument to accept it.
Though I'm starting to wonder ...
"Self-aggrandising deceptions" — "... pretence ... that you understand the science." — "vilify dissenters who are demonstrably better informed than you are" — "spreading your mistaken and confused views to others who also don't understand the science".
Could it be he's actually talking about himself? That would indeed be a very serious responsibility.
And the final ..."I have to tell you".
Such arrogance I have rarely met.

I sked: So, after a careful and honest review of the evidence you concluded that the politics is prior only if you are skeptical.

Your answer: No it varies.

Not really an answer to that question, is it?

Shub

Fine. How about 'the physics is prior'?

Unless politics, money, ignorance or fear (or any combination) displaces the physics.

This applies to all participants in the 'debate' equally, of course.

@Mike Jackson Dec 18, 2011 at 9:48 AM

I think "sneer and smear" is a wonderful description but I might suggest "stamp and shout" as an alternative.

That works, too ...although considering his unbounded arrogance and classic exercises in projection (of which he never fails to give us several demonstrations in any thread he decides to pollute) "twist and shout" seems equally appropos, don't you think?! .... hmmm ... I feel a song parody coming on ... let's see ...

Well, make it up BB, now (make it up BB)
Twist and shout (twist and shout)

nah ... that would be unkind;-)

It would be unsubstantiated.

BBD
Do you remember you had answered how you used 'honest analysis' to compare two different trends statistically? Or, how you used honest analysis to determine outliers in a series? Now it seems, you use honest analysis to determine if the politics was prior only if one were skeptical. The outcome of such honest analysis is quite important to our question given that you claim that the politics is prior to the results of Soon and Baliunas.

Seems to me, that your analysis reads: 'Beeep ....politics is prior', if you don't like the results.

Shub

If you want me to believe that the politics and money are not prior with S & B you need to explain away their affiliations and funding.

I find it hard to believe that you are still trying to do this.

All the evidence is public domain, nothing is contested legally by S & B and I have linked to plenty of it in this thread.

And yet despite the blindingly obvious links between S & B and right-wing corporate front organisations, you continue to deny that there is a problem here. It's not rational.

Seems to me your 'analysis' is: blank it out if you don't like it.

Dear BB

The 'evidence' that is in the 'public domain' was put up there by Soon and Baliunas. They declared it in their own papers.

This work was supported by funds from
the American Petroleum Institute (01-0000-4579), the Air
Force Office of Scientific Research (Grant AF49620-02-1-
0194) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(Grant NAG5-7635). The views expressed herein are those of
the authors and are independent of the sponsoring agencies.
We have benefitted greatly from the true and kind spirit of
research communications (including a preview of their
thoughts) with the late Jean Grove (who passed away on January
18, 2001), Dave Evans, Shaopeng Huang, Jim Kennett,
Yoshio Tagami and Referee #3. We thank John Daly, Diane
Douglas-Dalziel, Craig and Keith Idso for their unselfish contributions
to the references. We also thank the Editor, Chris
de Freitas, for very helpful editorial changes that improved
the manuscript. We are very grateful to Maria McEachern,
Melissa Hilbert, Barbara Palmer and Will Graves for invaluable
library help, and both Philip Gonzalez and Lisa Linarte
for crucial all-around help.

Why would they 'deny' information about them, which you learned from them?

It is 'blindingly obvious' because they let us know about it.

Just the kind of s*** investigation that lazy Greenpeace is capable of doing, take people's own words and smear them with it.

No straight answers, just 'honesty' eh?

Shub
You must have noticed the number of times that BBD calls me a liar for refusing to take part in his silly "answer the question" games.
He has also, along with his pet poodle, effectively accused Tim Ball of lying and/or falsifying his CV.
As far as I can see, he believes that anyone who ever bought a litre of petrol is tainted by that contact with Big Oil.
Perhaps NASA is the "right-wing corporate front organisation" he refers to. Or would that be the Air Force Office of Scientific Research?
What is "blindingly obvious" and certainly "in the public domain" is that warmism and paranoia go hand in hand. Since he drank the Kool-Aid he has lost all sense of proportion.

Shub

I didn't say they denied it - I said you did. You are the one claiming that principal funding by the American Petroleum Institute is not a problem, not me. You are the one who thinks that Soon being entirely funded to the tune of $1m by the energy industry since 2002 is a non-issue. You are the one who thinks that S&B's many, many links to right-wing corporate fronts like the Marshall Institute, the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute etc etc is just fine. Not me.

It's not a s**t investigation by Greenpeace that's the problem here. It's flat-out denial by you that is the problem here.

Weak, even by your standards.

MJ

Called you a 'liar'? When?

WRT Ball, accept that you were mistaken and stand corrected or show otherwise.

Who is my 'pet poodle' btw?

Shub

Greenpeace has done excellent research. You are the one who is lazy (or in denial, or both) because you evidently haven't read any of it.

Try again:

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/CASE-STUDY-Dr-Willie-Soon-a-Career-Fueled-by-Big-Oil-and-Coal/

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/maps.php

NOTE: Your usual tactic of snide rubbishing will not work from now on. Please provide checkable evidence that the GP research is flawed.

Thanks.