Discussion > Non-Chemtrail discussion on Warmist Trolls
Watch this video.
http://manchesterclimatemonthly.net/2014/03/14/climate-denialism-what-how-why-who-video-by-manchester-bigmouth/
You may recognise yourselves. For example, both Martin A and Ross Lead have been using the unreasonable expectations tactic.
After a while one recognises the stigmata of denialism and stops wasting effort. I had thought we were having a rational discussion. My mistake.
Entropic man
Entropic Man, you're the first person I've ever interacted with online who returns to a debate he's already lost, and flounced out of, in order to deliberately make himself look even more foolish.
Kudos!
Simon Hopkinson
Simon Hopkinson
Using ad hom, semantics and a huff is a sure sign that you're losing and argument coming back with a further huffy comment merely confirms that.
SandyS
" I had thought we were having a rational discussion."
No, it was you who came up with comments like "How can an experienced modeller talk such nonsense about models?" and implied that someone's comments on physics were invalid because he used a word in a way that did not meet your approval. Not what I'd characterise as rational argument.
You really don't have anything to contribute to the discussion - you don't make any real challenge to the views expressed here. You never seem to come up with anything that would make anyone say "That's a good question! We need to think about it".
Please tell us that, because of the 'insults', you are flouncing off again - and mean it this time.
Martin A
SandyS, MartinA
touche !
Ross Lea
MartinA, SandyS and Entropic Man (if you are still with us)
Solar output correlates with the North Atlantic jet stream over a millennium.
Very tentertive but not the less interesting. H/T Jo Nova.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/03/solar-output-correllates-with-the-north-atlantic-jet-stream-over-a-millenia/
Ross Lea
Something to look forward to:-
European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) conference 10th April.
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Programme_Climate-Conference_Mannheim_2014.04-P.pdf
a really impressive line-up.
H/T NoTricksZone.
Ross Lea
Comment left by 'Ross Lea
Thanks for the link, there may not be anything to except coincidence but I like to file things like that away for future reference.
sandyS
Martin A
Interesting that the definitions for both words start with A supposition, personally I think that either word will do for a hypeory of what is an unlikely event anyway.
I think we now know the answer in all three cases in both title of both posts now.
sandyS
SandyS
I think we now know the answer in all three cases in both title of both posts now.
For the life of me I don't know why people don't like new blood. They are afraid of things they don't understand. One possibility. I like to push the envelope. I think those that learn to do that very young have the best chance of survival.
replicant
Too much? Don't worry, I'm here for a good time, not a long time. Gone soon.
replicant
replicant
The question wasn't about new blood, of which there has been a lot over the years, but whether 3 posters added anything. Having a personal good time on a weekend doesn't add much to the place visited and usually leaves a mess to be cleared up afterwards. These last couple of efforts add further confirmation which wasn't actually necessary.
SandyS
This will be my last post. I'm not trying to have the last word. I've been bed ridden and haven't had anything else to do that kept my interests as much. But now I have been regaining my strength, so it'll have to be time to go.
Though I pretend my time as a shallow aside I consider my posts as anything but. It has been a strange experience. The responses I have gotten have been...interesting. It has been universally the same. Seemingly a stone wall 30 feet thick. Implacable in its position. Just when I thought there was some understanding the wall would rise up and show its true size. I would never in my dreams have suspected as much. Impressive. I am not being facetious. I always thought any post would be my last. Not because of behavior, which could certainly have been improved, but just because of the impossible separation of our position. It can be best typified by the last post on the gas profits thread. johanna I believe is asking for relief from my posts. Look at that she says. "Look at all those posts, and none of them meaningful." I am hurt :). Those were a few of my best posts, with unimpeachable facts and undeniable arguments. I wouldn't have made them if I thought otherwise. Completely and totally meaningless to you. Richard called all of them all 'stupid'. That's not a judgement or condemnation. I swear. It is an observation that these arguments do not resonate here. Not even a single vibration worth! I can't tell you how astonishing that observation is to me. It was however correct from the very start. Which by the way, was a bit more than a weekend ago. Not that it makes any difference.
But not to worry, I won't start all my arguments over again, as much as the itch urges me. And I'm not going away mad. Just going away. One can only have so much fun doing the same thing over and over. Sayonara.
replicant
Richard called all of them all 'stupid'.
False. I called the arguments that led to you saying this
And this consumes your consciousness? Not actually any other issues. Got it.
stupid. And I see the same flaw in both cases. You draw sweeping conclusions from data that does not remotely justify them and, surprise, they are deeply unfavourable to your opponents.
One can learn from this though. That is said with best wishes. I'm glad to hear you're no longer bed-ridden.
Richard Drake
But now I have been regaining my strength, so it'll have to be time to go.
Sorry to learn you've been unwell and pleased to hear that you are on the mend, replicant.
You'll be remembered but - no offence intended - your departure will not be regarded, on balance, as bad news.
I'm sure that everyone here wishes you well for the future.
Martin A
shub
The question is whether sceptics have bad apples in their 'side',
And this consumes your consciousness? Not actually any other issues. Got it.
Mar 16, 2014 at 10:06 PM | Unregistered Commenter replicant
The funny thing is though, that actually does consume this site's consciousness. By far and away the majority of threads and posts are exactly about that. The very next two posts in time are on the poverty thread and are about exactly that.
Richard called all of them all 'stupid'.
False. I called the arguments that led to you saying this
All of my arguments led to my saying that. And all of my arguments will leave with me, with that in mind.
Adios. For real this time.
replicant
And of course. Thank you Martin A.
I am sure I feel exactly the same way.
Irreconcilable differences.
replicant
I apologise. I didn't know those were the only arguments you had.
Richard Drake
Martin A
Interesting that the definitions for both words start with A supposition, personally I think that either word will do for a hypeory of what is an unlikely event anyway.
I think we now know the answer in all three cases in both title of both posts now.
Mar 16, 2014 at 10:10 PM sandyS
SandyS - yes indeed.
This thread, and its predecessor, have given more observational data.
On the previous thread, I commented
Yes, EM is always courteous, even to me, after I have said things about him that are less than completely polite.
Sometimes, now and then, he'll come up with something that is thought-provoking and then he adds real value to the discussion.
But, as I've said to EM, it's a shame that he often comes across as talking down to readers - a bit as if he were addressing a science class of 13-year olds - presenting things that are pretty trite and obvious as if they were observations of great profundity.
Plus, when he comes up with what are essentially trivialities, he's adding noise, rather than adding value. The prolificness with which he does this annoys some readers.
Feb 26, 2014 at 11:32 PM Martin A
Looking back on that comment, I think I was too lenient with EM.
I now find it difficult to think of an example where his contribution actually was thought-provoking. And I would not describe his recent comments as being particularly courteous.
Also, in the previous comment, I did not mention his tendencies:
- To bullshit ie to talk, apparently trying to appear authoritative and omniscient, while mentioning subjects where his knowledge and understanding are in fact clearly minimal.
- To start to complain that he is being 'insulted' at the drop of a hat, while simultaneously himself being rude.
On the hypothesis/theory thing, he's right in the sense that, for example, that "linear system theory" refers to a body of knowledge that is well established and is not suddenly going to be found to be false and replaced by something else.
However, he's wrong to claim that the everyday use of the word is incorrect. After all, with the English language, usage is the ultimate authority. And in everyday usage "The theory that CO2 increases the Earth's surface temperature remains unproved - it is nothing more than a theory" is correct, both in its use of English, and as a statement of fact.
Martin A
Martin A
Looking back on that comment, I think I was too lenient with EM.
You and me both as they say.
I see that as one leaves another in the form of Monty arrives, is it another case of correlation not causation do you think?
SandyS
SandyS - I don't think it is correlation at all. Quite the opposite.
Their arrivals seem to be statistically independent events, with an exponential distribution of inter-event times (hence it's a Poisson process).
Each one then spends a random time in the system before eventually vanishing in a puff of blue smoke. The departure rate is proportional to the number in the system.
After an initial 'warm-up' period, the system reaches statistical equilibrium, where the arrival rate equals the departure rate.
Martin A
To repost a comment I made previously but which seems to have (on a limited sample of evidence) some validity:
I think I have noticed a trend - although the sample is rather small to draw any firm conclusions. (BB, BBD, Zedbad,...)
1. A CAGW Believer turns up and poses questions/comments (evidently having read something like "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic"). Their knowledge of physics generally seems to have be limited more or less to rote learning. They seem adept at quoting things they have read but their comments don't seem to show any fundamental understanding of the points under discussion. They tend to say things like "go and read some science" - something it is quite hard to imagine anybody who has studied, say, physics or chemistry saying.
2. It becomes apparent the Believer seems surprised that the lucidity of their comments has not convinced readers into accepting that their sceptical views are erroneous.
3. The CAGW Believer becomes noticably more and more more prolific.
4. The CAGW Believer starts to show signs of frustration, dropping any pretence at discussing rationally, and turns to mocking people's names or other personal attributes.
5. Finally, the CAGW Believer disappears for one reason or another.
Feb 7, 2014 at 5:44 PM Martin A
Martin A
[snip]
Please ignore the Concern Trolls.
johanna
I have to agree with Simon Hopkinson, I have always tried to be polite to Entropic man, even when he sends me down a long list of links which don't actually prove his point. (his 6000 years doesn't go back far enough as this inter-glacial is "cooler" than the previous three, meaning the variation is not unusual)
Re Snowball Earth, these people think it is a theory too so I hope Entropic man will take time out from here to explain the difference to them BBC,
Dartmouthj Undergraduate Journal of Science,
debunk article by live science,
another debunk by science daily,
University of Washington,
finally here's one about the debunking of the theory of how it ended by Phys.org
It makes you wonder about today's education when some many educationalists and scientist don't know the difference between an theory and an hypothesis. For those from education and science who are reading here and don't know this is what http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ says
Theory
Hypothesis
So I think that Entropic man might have other reasons for leaving the discussion as his use of hypothesis implies limited evidence and therefore allows Jo Nova to omit it from her graphs. I am I an ill educated moron throwing insults at main stream science for thinking that way?
NB Like Entropic man I haven't read any of the links in detail