There has been a move of late to redefine words. Thus ‘art’ is anything someone who calls themselves an artist says it is. Similarly we have some very dodgy sciences that we are supposed to accept because someone who calls them self a scientist has produced it. However, like a pile of manure in an art gallery, crap is still crap. Its value just demonstrates the salesmanship of the purveyor and the gullibility of the buyer. To regain credibility, climate science needs to look a lot more like old fashioned science and lot less like a pile of 'art'.

Art is subjective, science shouldn't be.

Surely we're 100% confident that in the history of mankind we haven't found a conditionwhere the electrical conductivity of pure iron has exceeded the electrical conductivity of pure silver; or do Chandra and Entropic man know different.

It seems we do know 100% that a troll will take anything and use it to divert a thread down a blackhole.

QED

Going back to the original point of the thread, I have had further thoughts on Entropic man and would be interested on his and other views. The scenario is as follows

1. Entropic man answers a comment (usually someone else's) with google so and so

2. So and so is googled or just as likely a reference which potentially disproves the theory and the question how does this prove Climate Change is posted.

3. Entropic man then says yes it does

4. So more references are supplied with I've shown you mine now show me yours

5. Silence

This adds nothing as all I'm left with is a loss of time I'll never get back and a half finished discussion.

SandyS

Spot on he has never answered my questions. e.g. Mar 8, 2014 at 10:10 AM | Ross Lea

"When I respond to your arguments by pointing to articles, papers you never respond. I think others have noticed that you cut of debate when faced with contra evidence. Can you comment on the corelation between global temperature and Solar Cycles. Also would you like to comment on the effects of ocean cycles on global climate ?" No Response to date.

Kindly stop dissecting me. As one warmist debating against a number of sceptics I come here as time and health allow. If you want full continuous discussion find me reinforcements. I'm away to work now and will try to chat this evening.

On the matter of certainty, there is the practical confidence of direct lab measurement and the limited confidence given by sampling and statistics.
That there is never certainty is a ultimately a philosophical point. Consider a rectangular hyperbola. Extend the Xand Y axes to infinity. The curve should never touch either axis.
Lacking an infinite piece of paper one can never be certain that the curve is actually hyperbolic. However, if one can show that X=0 or Y=0 at any point, it is not a hyperbola.That is how falsifiability works in an ideal world. In practice life is messier.

For further discussion try here.

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/

Entropic man
That's all well and good, but why start so many unfinished conversations? That is your choice and not ours, the impression it leaves is as you've read above.

Entropic Man
Yes but what about climate and solar cycles and climate and Ocean Cycles ? See above.

Mike Jackson

The unintelligent troll never rises above ad homs;
The moderately intelligent troll tries to bury everybody under meaningless verbiage usually by quoting back their victims' comments and then not answering them while pretending to (and usually being supercilious with it);
The intelligent troll has enough knowledge to make the case coherently but gets lost when you challenge him on specific points.

That pretty much says it all for you doesn't it Make. Somebody who is an expert at making meaningless and unsupported statements and then doesn't have the wherewithall of a gnat to attempt at the lightest explanation of his own position. Which isn't a position at all is it Mike. You and all the other shills and trolls on this site have long since taken over the space and pretty much drummed out anybody who tries to say anything.

I'd like to see you defend one single position you have. Go ahead, give me one single position that you hold and we'll see how long you last. On another thread Chandra was explaining how he wouldn't like fracking near his home. Immediately he was jumped on by you jackels and attacked how he was a NIMBY, how he was out to destroy an industry and on and on with you idiotic mindless attacks. Go ahead, give me one single position - if you have one at all that. If you even know what kind os=f a position you should hold. One that isn't labeled with you childish, warmist, lukewarmist, climate sceptic (whatever that is), or some other meaningless label.

It's a joke. Pretty much the only people here who aren't trolls are Chandra, EM and me. This site is so infected with trolls and shills that they are the one who think it is they who are the regulars and they are allowed to decide who adds value or not.

Go ahead, try me on. P****. Shill. Go ahead, show me one single post you made that any value in it whatsoever. Show me one single post you made where you actually had a point besides shooting off your mouth like the one where I extracted this gem from. No doubt this one, like you pals David Porter and Radiant Rodent who don't post anything that might require substance. Show me something where any of you three knew what it is you were talking about.

Explain to me how the Club of Rome is going to exterminate the population. Oh, nothing forthcoming? I mean there's even a post around here where it even even headlined in the opening post I think how everything is the fault of the Club of Rome. And everybody afterwards cheered the author on. I think the name was Richard or something like that. I think he's to be given some respect or something like that around here. Why don't you twp join up and tell me just how this works. Or is it just beneath such monumental intellectuals as yourself and Richard to bother actually explaining yourself?

Here, let me help you out Mike. Here's the thread. It wasn't by a Richard guy but a John Shade guy who pointed out the Club of Rome.

http://www.bishop-hill.net/discussion/post/2101561

Martin A pointed out that JS was spot on and you chimed in with

The genesis of the present scare lies with the likes of Maurice Strong and the Club of Rome, not to mention all the other pseudo-Malthusians, control freaks and eugenicists who long ago decided that mankind was a blight on the planet, that the third world needed to be stopped in its tracks before it over-ran the rest of us and that the only way forward was to find a scare that would either have us quaking in our boots (as per Mencken's famous quote) or that could be scientifically manipulated to convince politicians that some unpicking of western civilisation was necessary for the continued existence of mankind.

With everybody else providing supporting roles. But not one single person is able to expand one single little bit about how the green revolution ends with the intentional die off of half the world's population and no one apparently, not India or China or Russia is able to stop these mad green revolutionaries. One would think that with so many luminaries in a thread one of them would be able to elucidate this idea for me.

So in other words a genuine discussion for you only includes those concepts which you judges acceptable. Other concepts are dark holes which you are afraid to explore.

Club of Rome seems like it should be a dark hole. Considering the role they are credited with playing I fail to see how they could be excluded from any AGW topic. Apparently the claim is that the green fascists at the Club of Rome are decimating businesses across the globe from completing their God given right to resources and alarmists are terrifying the people into rebellion and forcing the government to pass legislation that is hampering the free rein of extracting those resources. And because of this the world is going down to hell in a hand basket.

I'll tell you what. Why don't we compare notes. You list all the instances where legislation has forced a corporation to halt proceedings in compliance with the will of the existing habitats, and I'll create a list where legislation allows the corporate activity against the will of the local inhabitants. And then afterwards we'll compare the two reports. Sound fair? Oh, I'll even add little bonus. I'll add in addition to my list an addendum which lists any further grievances and complaints the inhabitants suffered since the beginning of the corporate activity. I have no list handy and will have to start from scratch, same as you. Got a better idea?

This list I figure should be easy for you. I saw the beginning of one thread here where a shill on one thread was whinning how the eco-terrorists have completely overrun government. Well with them in such complete control examples for should be a dime a dozen.

Entropic man,
Were you suggesting that we continue our discussions on that link or was it another of your posts on which no further discussion occurs?

Since I don't see anything forthcoming from you I'll start first.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Ag-gag_laws

Here's a list of laws which were passed by which corporations can hide animal cruelty on their property - Real Nice.

Ag-gag laws are laws intended to prevent whistleblowers from exposing animal cruelty on farms...The term "ag gag" for the laws was coined by Mark Bittman in an April 2011 New York Times column.[2]

This one would be high on any eco-terrorist list. Why don't you explain to me how these eco-terrorists have completely controlled the legislation that these ag-farmers have been forced to comply...and now do comply. I'm all ears.

I'll count this one as one example. I'll give you a handicap.

Ross lea

The GISS data shows a decadal oscillation corresponding with sunspot numbers peaks. The amplitude is +/-0.05C.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

There is also a correlation between the LIA and the Maunder Minimum, a prolonged solar minimum. The weak current solar maximum may have contributed to the recent slowdown in warming. Unfortunately there is nothing to indicate that the solar cycles are the dominate driver of recent climate change.

I once calculated the energy change associated the AMO. The Atlantic Ocean absorbed and released enough energy over its 60 year cycle to drive an atmospheric oscillation of +/-0.15C. The PDO has a similar amplitude, though complicated by El Nino and La Nina changes. From the GISS data one might argue for a 60 year cycle with an amplitude of +/-0.2C on which the longer term trend is superimposed.

These are cycles, temporary oscillations about a mean. None of them are large enough to generate the observed 0.6C/century trend observed since the early 20th century.

Sandy S

Why so many comments? Consider this statement by hunter -

"The ocean is a terrible thermometer. It will absorb vast quantities of heat before it expands."

He clearly does not understand the connection between specific heat capacity, temperature and thermal expansion. If you are willing to let so much wrong science slosh around the site, that's up to you. It certainly does little for the scientific credibility of sceptics.

Entropic man
If you can't continue all conversations you start to a reasonable conclusion you're never going to be considered anything other than a troll. My advice is be selective, and concentrate on what you can see through to the end. Let vague imprecise statements like the one you highlight pass by. As it happens I'd put oceans and trees into the category of poor thermometers. Please don't start a dialogue on that as it will only be another diversion. .

Sandy

Entropic man
I meant to say that the author of an imprecise statement may well come back with a whole series of reasons why what he says is scientifically OK, you may not have the time to reply to that leaving another who thinks you only do it to wind people up.

Sandy S

Worth a try. Which thread do you want to concentrate on?

Entropic man
Entirely up to you, if it's something I'm interested in I'll take part if not I'll just read.

I would suggest the same for yourself; ignoring new interesting threads until the active one comes to a natural conclusion. Life is less stressful that way. at least until you get involved in a discussion when each answer is ignored and a new unrelated question raised with added sarcasm, give up at that point.

bonne chance

Sandy