Josh writes…
A dark cartoon for the the start of the year following the shocking events in Paris and stories about the blocking of ideas and closed minds.
I wonder what will happen when the Green Blob meets in Paris later in the year?
Josh writes…A dark cartoon for the the start of the year following the shocking events in Paris and stories about the blocking of ideas and closed minds.
I wonder what will happen when the Green Blob meets in Paris later in the year?
You can’t offend somone, They must choose to be offended.
Careful how and where you play that card.
Free speech for those who deserve it
al Gore
patchy
bbc..etc
Good comment seen this morning on Breitbart London (Monday)
Sajid Javid can say Islam is a “religion of peace” all he wants but those of us who understand how the Koran works know differently. Quoting the peaceful verses when Mohammed was in Mecca (and only got a handful of followers) is nonsense. The Koran works on the principle of abrogation. So if 2 verses contradict each other, the later one is the valid one and the earlier one is abrogated. Hence the violent verses when Mohammed was in Medina (and was far more successful in spreading his religion by the sword) cancel out the peaceful earlier Mecca ones. And here we are in 2015 some 1400 years later with 290+ million people killed in the name of a “peaceful religion”.
“So if 2 verses contradict each other, the later one is the valid one and the earlier one is abrogated. Hence the violent verses when Mohammed was in Medina (and was far more successful in spreading his religion by the sword) cancel out the peaceful earlier Mecca ones. ”
In practice they’re more flexible.
They use those suras that are appropriate for the desired action at a given time.
A simple question: Goddard reports daily on how the climate record is being corrupted and how biased information is being fed to the public in the name of political correctness, how the satellite datasets are being ignored, how government paid employees are lying to the people, how the scientific method is being corrupted.
Is this an issue for this web site? It seems not to be. For me, this is a parallel to the denial about Islamic fundamentalism not being about muslims. In this case the ‘muslims’ are supposedly mainstream ‘climate scientists’ that people don’t want to offend.
Well, we certainly know there is no free speech when it comes to the issue of catastrophic man-made global warming, and we also know that governments are not interested in protecting free speech when it comes to challenging the IPCC’s mantra. They are behind the IPCC and are party to the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind.
Mervyn,
And yet here you are freely writing about your contrarian views of AGW. Logic-impaired much?
Gates,
What is a “contrarian”?
Dbstealey…
..
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contrarian
…
Google is your friend.
Brandon, I think dbstealey wanted your definition of a contrarian. Many, or most, words used in debate have private meanings. For instance, “social justice” has presumably predictable meaning to the left wing but means almost nothing predictable to the right wing where individuals make up the world and “social” cannot have “justice”, only people can have justice.
On the face of it, “contrarian” simply means that someone usually or always takes an opposing point of view — but opposing what? Well that’s the part that isn’t obvious. No matter what side a contrarian takes, he’s in agreement with a large number of people while being contrary to a different large number of people.
So the term “contrarian” is about useless.
However, I recognize the herd mentality of the left, a grand assumption that it defines all norms and thus anything else is “contrarian” (or any of a great many other labels).
While I have already agreed with you that people can easily express themselves, perhaps a better choice would be “unfettered” or “I can speak without losing my job” freedom of speech.
Amazingly, that’s a libertarian outlook and that’s the problem. The world is not libertarian.
Freedom to say anything to anyone, without repercussion, cannot exist. Internet blogs are about the closest thing to it. You can also go into your backyard and talk to your tree, or your dog, and there won’t be much repercussion.
Michael.
..
You seem to have missed an import part of Mr Dbstealey’s question. It has nothing to do with what a contrarian is. If you examine the context, the sentence reads “your contrarian views of AGW.”
Notice the word your “contrarian” is used as an adjective. It is not used as a noun.
Secondly it modifies the word “view” and view is further modified by “of AGW”
..
So, in effect Brandon has labeled Mr Mervyn’s view correctly, being that it is contrary to the AGW view.
Michael 2,
And I’ve given it to him. Last time was 10 days ago:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/02/an-open-letter-to-politifact-com/#comment-1829670
Sure, dog-whistle politics.
Consensus.
I recognize the herd mentality of PEOPLE. In my mind, “contrarian” carries more complimentary meaning than negative.
My view is that the nuanced difference between the words “freedom” and “liberty” cause much confusion. About the most concisely I’ve seen it put is that freedom is the ability to choose and act as one wishes absent any external control. Liberties are the freedoms granted by society to its own members.
So, I may be free to kill someone, but by the laws of society I am not at liberty to do so.
Well no. It’s only through the collective efforts of large groups of people that we as a species have been able to accomplish what we have. Collective effort means organization, which generally entails rules. Hopefully those rules are established by good-faith negotiations by conflicting parties which end in some functional compromise.
Increasingly it’s winner take all. I don’t like that.
Well now see there you’re speaking in ambiguities which I suspect is code. So, why should I be allowed to yell FIRE in a crowded theater when the building is not in fact undergoing rapid and dangerous combustion?
Slippery this slope, innit.
Socrates,
Ah, so I did it properly this time.
In the past I have referred to “climate contrarians”, which is the noun-form. I’ve never figured out whether it’s grammatically correct to say “climate consensarians” … Google says no … so usually I’m reduced to “consensus climatologists” or the more wordy and awkward “those who hold the climate consensus view”.
What I think this fuss really is about is that I refuse to cede the word “skeptical” as a distinguishing adjective between IPCC-approved (TM) points of view and everything else.
(Signed)
B. Gates, proud warmunist, IPCC shill, professional ignoramus and unrepentant troll [1]
———————
[1] I read it on WUWT, so it must be true. Amirite? I’m right.
Me: Freedom to say anything to anyone, without repercussion, cannot exist.
You: Well now see there you’re speaking in ambiguities which I suspect is code.
Me: No code, not conspicuously anyway. It is the foundation on which a social contract is built. If I can say anything, so can you, and what you say may well constitute a “repercussion”. It is a simple statement of fact that I cannot say anything to anyone and expect everyone on earth to shut up and listen; although I sense an expectation by many (teenagers in particular) that this is possible.
You: So, why should I be allowed to yell FIRE in a crowded theater when the building is not in fact undergoing rapid and dangerous combustion?
There is no “allow” and no sovereign to do the allowing. Do it if you wish but there’s likely to be consequences. Rules tend to be reminders of the social contract; ignored by criminals. But sociology doesn’t have criminals; it has… well I forget, but they don’t subscribe to the social contract, or any such contract in case that several exist (which is indeed the case; each culture and/or religion has its own social contract).
Um, yeah, what Brandon said. There’s plenty of free speech. Perhaps you meant no financially subsidized speech in which case your assertion is a bit more true.
“Off-topic sniping?”
…
Too funny.
1) Mervyn makes a comment
2) Brandon replies labeling Mervyn’s view as contrarian (adjective)
3) Dbstealey then comes in and asks a question which is not only off topic, but a question he has asked before, and already got an answer to.
..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/02/an-open-letter-to-politifact-com/#comment-1829670
..
..
Yes, dbstealey, you are guilty of “off-topic sniping”
PS, I find your minority view very amusing. (that being in the views from the wider world outside of WUWT)
socks, that’s so cute. Believing that he’s in the “consensus”.
As I said, I have the numbers. He doesn’t.
Show me yours, and I’ll show you mine.☺
42
Still waiting…
By name, please. I have thirty thousand.
So as they say… put up or shut up.
“Show me yours”
..
I did
…
[Reply: sorry, the names didn’t come through. Must be a glitch. ~ mod.]
PS…….there are over 10 million that didn’t sign it
Now THAT’S funny!!
I am surprised to see outright duplicity admitted to like that. My challenge was for scientists by name who contradict the OISM petition, in writing the same way. You can’t, and throwing out a random number like that is an admission of failure.
There are over 310 million people in the USA
Of the 310 million people, there are over 10 million that hold “hard” science degrees, and are qualified to sign the OISM petition.
I’m a member of the 99.7% that didn’t sign it
The 30,000+ that did sign it represent 0.3% of the number of people qualifed.
..
Oh…and by the way, signers of a “petition” is not a random sample, so no statistical conclusions can be drawn from it.
[Neither is deliberately publicizing only 2 answers out of 5 questions asked from only 75 replies to a form submitted to 13,500 members.
But that 97% (75 out of 13,500) you do approve of, eh? .mod]
The OISM petiton started out as the Oregon Petition over a decade ago It has such a sordid history that the credibility of it today has yet to be restored. They had to purge the names of the Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882). prank names such as “I. C. Ewe”, and the characters of M*A*S*H from the list of signatories. There’s no way to verify any of the names, and the methodology is not transparent.
[But no OISM Petition writer gave their peer-reviewed, scientifically accurate, recorded age as 32,000 years. .mod]
It didn’t help matters in 1998 when Seitz put the NAS-lookalike document in the malilngs. The NAS disavowed this, and in 2006 Seitz admits that ‘it was stupid’ for the Oregon activists to copy the academy’s format.
Ya know, sox, if we subtract your baseless assertions from your posts, your comments would look like this: [ “…” ].
You just cannot admit that you have no evidence that your view is anything but an indication of a relatively small clique. Instead, you resort to your usual talking points, which are nothing but an opinion.
Well, there are more folks with a very favorable opinion of OISM. You can start with the 32,000+ co-signers. Who have you got? You have yet to name a single one on your side.
I’m sticking with the 10 million qualified individuals that didn’t sign that bogus petition.
” baseless assertions ”
…
Here’s a link to the 2006 quote from Seitz
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/05/warming200605?currentPage=6
It’s on page 4
Sorry, socks, but I could hardly get past page 2 of that preposterous alarmist nonsense before I had to stop reading. However, I did skip to page 4 to see what you were referring to. But there’s nothing there! That’s not the first time someone has tried to pass off a link that doesn’t say what they claimed.
What you have to contend with, socks, is the fact that tens of thousands of highly educated scientists and engineers downloaded a copy of the OISM Petition, printed it out, signed it and mailed it in [no emails accepted]. Are you claiming they did not understand exactly what they were signing?
And if you admit that they knew, you still cannot get 31,000 climate alarmists to dispute it. You can’t get 3,100. Really, you can’t get 300. Isn’t that the truth?
If you claim you can — then produce them! By name. That’s 100 – 1. Can you get one in a hundred scientists, by name, to sign an anti-OISM statement? A hundred to one, socks. You can’t get much better odds than that.
Now, I know that cAGW is sock’s religion, so I will never be able to make him see the light. But for everyone else, I think they can see exactly which side has the so-called “consensus”. If socks can’t find even one signature for every hundred I found, he has hopelessly lost the debate.
Here you go Mr Dbstealey…
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/05/warming200605?currentPage=6
page 4…
..
“For his part, Seitz says he was comfortable taking tobacco money, “as long as it was green. I’m not quite clear about this moralistic issue. We had absolutely free rein to decide how the money was spent.” Did the research give the tobacco industry political cover? “I’ll leave that to the philosophers and priests,” he replies.
Seitz is equally nonplussed by the extraordinary disavowal the National Academy of Sciences issued following his most visible intervention in the global-warming debate. In 1998 he urged fellow scientists to sign an Oregon group’s petition saying that global warming was much ado about little. The petition attracted more than 17,000 signatories and received widespread media attention. But posted along with the petition was a paper by four global-warming deniers that was presented in virtually the same layout and typeface used by the National Academy of Sciences in its scholarly journal. The formatting, combined with Seitz’s signature, gave the clear impression that the academy endorsed the petition. The academy quickly released a statement disclaiming any connection with the petition or its suggestion that global warming was not real. Scientific American later determined that only 1,400 of the petition’s signatories claimed to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science, and of these, some either were not even aware of the petition or later changed their minds.
Today, Seitz admits that “it was stupid” for the Oregon activists to copy the academy’s format. Still, he doesn’t understand why the academy felt compelled to disavow the petition, which he continues to cite as proof that it is “not true” there is a scientific consensus on global warming.”
…
Is your browser broken?
Hey soxie, seitz made some assertions. He has nothing to back them up with. I believe the proper word in cases like that is “disgruntled”.
BTW, where’s your alarmist statement? Still waiting…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/10/portents-in-paris/#comment-1834302
disgruntled?”
The VF quote was from 2006
“In August 2007, Dr. Seitz reviewed and approved the article by Robinson, Robinson, and Soon that is circulated with the petition and gave his enthusiastic approval to the continuation of the Petition Project.”
(ref: http://www.petitionproject.org/seitz_letter.php )
Yeah…..sure…
Socks never answered my question: did those 31,000+ individual scientists and engineers know and understand the statement they were co-signing their names to?
That is what is being deliberately obfuscated by Vanity Fair [not a very credible science source, is it?]
So. Did they understand? Or not?
If they understood what they were signing, then the rest of it doesn’t matter. At that point, all that matters is whether there is a contrary statement from one of the alarmist contrarians.
And: do the number of named contrarian signatories in any such alarmist statement come anywhere near to OISM’s numbers? That is the only legitimate comparison. The total number of scientists in the universe is just the old Red Herring fallacy.
Finally, I still say to Socks: you got nothin’.☺
dbstealey,
I’d rank it one step above an “overlay chart” on the credibility scale.
” did those 31,000+ individual scientists and engineers know and understand the statement they were co-signing their names to?”
There is no way to tell, the OISM organization doesn’t provide enough information to verify their list.
Also, see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/10/portents-in-paris/#comment-1834290
I don’t think we could ask Charles Darwin
As I have said earlier, the OISM’s history is quite sordid.
For those of you that don’t like Vanity Fair…
http://markhertsgaard.com/while-washington-slept/
You can even send the author of the article an email to verify the Seitz quote.
Just click “Contact”
Socks, rather than worrying about anything with the 31,000 OISM signers, why don’t you worry about the fact that you’ve got nothin’?
You are impotently trying to tear down something that makes fools out of everyone who parrots the “consensus” nonsense. You will notice that so far you have not posted one name, compared to the 31,000+ I have posted.
So you’ve got absolutely nothing — but you’re complaining about the 31K I have?? Get a grip.
Hey, what am I doing, arguing with a religious acolyte who is more fixed in his beliefs than any Jehovah’s Witness?
I like pulling the wings off flies, I guess. Debating sox is just as much fun! Easier, too.
1) The 31,000 can’t be verified
2) There are over 10,000,000 people that are qualified that didn’t sign it
…
I’m sticking with the 10 million, you can hang with the 31,000
“The U.S. Department of Education tracks the number of graduates from institutions of higher education every year, and has done so since either the 1950-51 or 1970-71 school years, depending on what specifically the Dept. of Ed. was interested in. This data was last updated in the Digest of Education Statistics: 2008. We’re specifically interested in the number of degrees that have been awarded in the various scientific disciplines as defined by the OISM in the list above. This information is available in the following tables within the 2008 Digest: 296, 298, 302, 304, 310, 311, and 312”
Neat wouldn’t you say?
(ref http://scholarsandrogues.com/2009/08/02/152-oism-scientists-cant-be-wrong/ )
Dbstealey
…
I went to http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php?run=S
and searched for “stealey”
…
How come you haven’t signed the OISM petition yet?
Socks says:
How come you haven’t signed the OISM petition yet?
Good point. I think I will. I would do a search for “Socrates”, but that is just a sockpuppet name. A ‘sockspuppet’ name. ‘Socks’ doesn’t qualify for inclusion, anyway. His GED doesn’t hack it.
Next, socks says:
The 31,000 can’t be verified
Wrong. But then, who is still counting? Socks has been wrong about everything. That’s what happens when he confuses his religion with science.
For example, right on thier first page, OISM shows the statement co-signed by Dr. Edward Teller [PhD, Physics].
See, socks has been wrong about everything. I just play Whack-A-Mole with his failed comments, because it’s fun ‘n’ easy! ☺
I have to larf out loud at sock’s desperate NEED to try and discount the 31,000+ OISM co-signers. Socks refuses to say that they didn’t know what they were signing — but of course, they did know. Every co-signer knew exactly what he/she was signing…
…all 31,000+ of them.
They were signing a statement saying that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. But socks does not like that — because if he admitted that, his entire argument, such as it is, would go down in flames.
In fact, the entire ‘man-made global warming’ scare is preposterous. There is NO scientific evidence supporting it — only religious wackos like socks and his ilk. No wonder the scare is fading fast.
It must really suck to have NO corroborating evidence to support ones belief system. But that is the tight corner Socks has painted himself into, and that is why he feels the need to get personal.
His taunts do not bother me either. It gives me much amusement to watch socks squirm around, trying to avoid admitting that tens of thousands of American scientists and engineers didn’t understand the *very* simple and straighforward statement all those scientists were signing.
Like everyone else in his rapidly failing alarmist clique, Mr. Socks has lost all credibility. Planet Earth is making a fool out of socks and his ilk. That is the difference between skeptics, and religious acolytes like socks: skeptics change their minds if/when facts change. But not socks. He just keeps digging.☺
Finally, here is an excellent example of a canard:
“There are over 10,000,000 people that are qualified that didn’t sign it”
That is a canard. Why not include the whole world? There must be six billion who didn’t sign. Hey, let’s include the universe! There must be 781×80^196 entities that didn’t sign!
And why stop there? There’s always Graham’s Number…
…see? Socks is using a canard, because he just does not have any credible alarmist scientists to counter OISM. Socks has not named one single alarmist scientist who has contradicted the OISM Petition. Not one! All he has are his baseless assertions, and his devious canards. No wonder Socks is a laughingstock here at the internet’s Best Science & Technology site. We keep socks around for larfs, and to give an example of what the term “debunked” means for new readers.
Finally, I still love to point this out to Socks: you got nothin’.☺
He doesn’t know that he doesn’t know. That said, Gates will be along at any moment to ‘splain it to us!
The 31,000 can’t be verified
Wrong”
…
Tell us how to verify the names please.
…
And while you are at it, note that Judith Curry and Roy Spencer haven’t signed, and neither has the owner of this web site.
“Why not include the whole world? ”
….
They don’t accept anyone outside of the USA, but you already knew that I’ll bet.
…
Did you see the breakdown of the 10 million?
1) Your whole post is ad-hominem, as my financial situation is irrelevant to the topic being discussed.
2) “It is Tuesday, right in the middle of the workweek” No, it’s Wednesday in Austrailia
3) ” What does that tell us? ” ….might tell us that unlike you, there are people in the world that have rich fathers that left them a boatload of money when they died.
4) “Prove me wrong” ……see item #3
..
Apparently out of substantive rebuttals, dbstealey hides behind the non sequitur.
“you are trying to convince people that not one name is legit? ”
..
No, I’m telling you that there is no way to verify the list of names they provide. I’m sure there are legitimate names on the list, and I’m sure there are illegitimate names on the list. The problem is that you can’t tell which are legitimate and which are not.
Socrates, re: item (3): you should therefore understand why I got a good chuckle when DB made the crack about me living in my mother’s basement.
Babsy says:
He doesn’t know that he doesn’t know.
Doubled and squared. The two know-nothings are proselytizing here, but it’s only their religion. It has nothing to do with science. They are just contrarians.
I still want to see even 300 alarmist names posted, from legitimate scientists who contradict the OISM Petition. Just a mere 300, compared with more than 30,000.
They can’t do it. No matter how many times they’re asked, they still fail to find some alarmist names. All they’ve got is verbiage — baseless assertions. Opinions.
So, they’ve got nothin’. ☺
Exactly.
You haven’t told us how to verify the 31,000 names.
…
Socrates,
Real skeptics don’t need no stinkin’ validation, especially when science by popularity is the subject.
Brandon,
..
This about sums up the entire discussion about the OISM petition with Mr dbstealey…..
..
“Socks says:
How come you haven’t signed the OISM petition yet?
Good point. I think I will. ”
..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/10/portents-in-paris/#comment-1834851
Soxie sez:
This about sums up the entire discussion about the OISM petition
Let me re-phrase that, correctly:
This about sums up the entire discussion, showing that sock ain’t got nothin’!
Really: NOT ONE alarmist scientist contradicting the OISM Petition. Not one!!
If that isn’t pathetic, then nothing is. An argument from ignorance, where socks can’t find a single scientist to support his religious belief.
Some nutso folks just argue because thier On/Off switch is wired around, and it’s always On. <— That's mr. socks.
Now I will sit back in amused anticipation, while socks trots back to his thinly-trafficked alarmist blog for some advice and talking points.
Go, soxy! *snicker* ☺
Dbstealey…
…
Get back to me on your OISM petition after you sign it.
…
You should also tell Roy Spencer and Judith Curry to sign it too.
..
Oh, and ask the owner of this blog to sign it when you talk to Roy and Judith.
…
Once I see your name in the list of signatories, we can talk about verification.
Gates says:
Apparently out of substantive rebuttals…
Gates, best you should have heeded Babsy’s warning, and not commented. Because when you say things like that, you are just being a dope.
I have thoroughly and decisively rebutted every lame point that socks has tried to put up. It’s easy=peasy, because Socks is a failure. He failed at every attempt; he cannot produce even one alarmist name — much less 300, as I challenged him. Or 3,000, which is only one-tenth the OISM’s numbers. And of course, neither of you could come up with even one percent of the OISM numbers working together [and you have plenty of free time, dontcha?]
Face facts, junior: the so-called “consensus” is completely on the side of the scientific skeptics of man-made global warming. Always has been. And just like socks…
…you’ve got nothin’. ☺
And as for socks: get back to me after you have signed OISM. You brought it up, so now let’s see you do it. If you can.
But like everything else, you will fail, because you do not have the necessary qualifications. Do you? No, and your GED doesn’t count.
All dbstealey has are 31,000 unverifiable names.
…
I’m sorry Mr dbstealy, I cannot sign that petition.
…
The petition’s statement is false.
Socks says:
The petition’s statement is false.
Now we’re getting somewhere. So now you actually mentioned something that can be discussed. OK…
…what is “false” about the OISM Petition? Keep in mind that it scuttled the stoopid Kyoto Protocol, so it’s already got a lot going for it.
Now DB is doing science by politics. Shocking.
This is false…..
“The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment”
Gates,
No, you are doing ‘politics by politics’. It’s all politics to you. Not long ago you said you were a big lefty. That means Lysenko is your role model.
Socks says:
“This is false…..”
*sheesh*, some folks just don’t have a clue.
The biosphere is expanding measurably due to the rise in CO2. The planet is measurably GREENING in lockstep with the rise in that beneficial trace gas. More is better.
Anyone with half a brain can see that limiting [harmless, beneficial] CO2 would harm the environment. In fact, reducing CO2 by half would kill just about every living thing on earth.
Next question…
[Wack-A-Mole is great fun!]
Tsk, tsk tsk.
..
Dbstealey accuses Gates of doing politics.
Then he says Lysenko is his role model.
…
Unfortunately dbstealey is confused.
Lysenko was not a politician.
…
So, how can he be a role model for politicization?
Dbstealey…
…
You have failed to show how a limit is harmful
…
Plants have done fine with CO2 at 350 ppm
Plants have done fine with CO2 at 360 ppm
Plants have done fine with CO2 at 370 ppm
Plants have done fine with CO2 at 380 ppm.
..
Please tell us how a limit will harm the environment.
dbstealey,
What can I say, I’m a purist.
Socrates,
To crib an “argument” from the Skeptical (TM) playbook:
Plants have done fine with CO2 at 180 ppm
Plants have done fine with CO2 at 3,000 ppm
I’ve been looking and have not found anything in the script which explains what happens during rapid transitions. Curious that.
Sock says:
Dbstealey accuses Gates of doing politics.
Gates has already admitted it.
And:
You have failed to show how a limit is harmful
A ‘harmful limit’ is exactly what I showed. But then, you come from a religious point of view, not from anything scientific or objective.
See, socks is out of facts. He is out of rebuttals. All he can do at this point is make baseless assertions. That’s the only thing he’s good at.
That is the state of alarmism today. Planet Earth is busy debunking everything the alarmist crowd says, and everything they believe in. They have been 100.0% WRONG in every prediction they ever made. Why should reasonable people still listen to them? They’re always wrong.
OTOH, playing Whack-A-Mole with the clueless is fun! Give me more of your pseudo-science and nonsense, Socks! I need another larf, and I’ve already watched every Three Stooges episode. You provide some good comic relief.
Finally, Gates seems to believe that CO2 is bad. He doesn’t know it is as essential to life on earth as H2O. There is a lower limit. Neither of the peanut galletry goofs are willing to admit it, though. Just look at ’em squirm.
“‘harmful limit’ is exactly what I showed. ”
…
You did not show any harm. An unrealized gain is not a gain (to borrow a concept from the financial sector). In a similar fashion, and unrealized loss is not a loss either.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/unrealizedgain.asp
Losing an unrealized gain is not a loss, and you can’t take a loss for it on 1040 Schedule D
So, again, please tell me what “harm” comes from a limit on emissions.
Isn’t socks cute? He’s at least in the 5th grade! I’m sure of it. He says:
You did not show any harm.
Only a fool would claim that exterminating all life on earth does not “show any harm”.
But then, I repeat myself. ☺
Soxy sez:
Do you have something better for debunking…
I have plenty — while you’ve got nothin’. The fact is that EVERY stooopid alarmist prediction has failed. All of them. No exceptions. So why should anyone listen to your alarmist nonsense?
Dbstealey.
…
Can you explain how placing a limit on the human emissions of CO2 will exterminate all life on earth?
Socks,
You are as full of inane questions as a little kid. Either you refuse to understand simple concepts, or you cannot understand. One or the other.
I can easily answer, to where everyone else can understand. But since you are incapable of understanding the simple concept that CO2 is as essential for life on earth as H2O, I’ll let you stew in your ignorance.
So answer this [one of my *very* few questions to you]:
Why should anyone answer your interminable site-pest, pestering questions? They are juvenile, and you are only running interference for whomever is paying you. And when push comes to shove, you’ve got nothing. Zero. Planet Earth is flatly contradicting your entire belief system.
But being a religious acolyte, you simply cannot accept reality. As a result, we get your incessant, stooopid questions…
“I have plenty ”
…
Go for it then.
dbstealey,
I guess you missed the nuance about me being a purist. The science informs my policy views, not the other way around.
You wrote: The science informs my policy views, not the other way around.
Then you should make an effort to get a refund on your ‘scientific education’ because you wuz RIPPED OFF!
‘Go for it’??
Since only you have a problem understanding, I prefer to let you stew in your ignorance.
No one else has a hard time understanding. Only you. So once again, I suggest that you try to get up to speed by reading the WUWT archives for a few months. Because trotting back to your misinformation blogs is not helping you to understand anything.
@Brandon:
It’s politics to you, as you said. So your climbdown is meaningless backing and filling…
dbstealey,
Tell us something we don’t know, DB. This has got to be the mother of all strawman arguments.
“I can easily answer,” ……….OK….Go for it
…
“Why should anyone answer your interminable site-pest, pestering questions?” ……because you made the statement that placing a limit on the human emissions of CO2 will exterminate all life on earth. You should know better than to make a statement of that nature without evidence to support your assertion. Does it get uncomfortable when your feet are held to the fire?
dbstealey,
And just why should I not be able to express my political views, hmmm? Or talk about the basis for them, eh? Again you miss the point of how I think:
1) Attempt to establish a factual basis for my beliefs.
2) Form policy opinions about what I believe to be correct about reality.
3) Engage in a political discussion informed by my opinions and beliefs of how things actually work.
Could I be wrong about the facts? Why yes, I most certainly could be. It’s because of my awareness of my potential wrongness that I attempt to keep the politics from driving my perceptions of the facts as I understand them. The “facts” could indeed be wrong. So I keep the discussions separate and pure in my mind as much as possible and make all efforts to ensure that politics does not inform my perceptions of fact.
Socrates,
He has no feet, having shot off both of them himself a long time ago.
Brandon, did you know that if we put limits on the human emissions of CO2, that it will exterminate all life on earth?
…
Dbstealey said so….. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/10/portents-in-paris/#comment-1835569
Gates says:
And just why should I not be able to express my political views, hmmm?
Express away. Just so everyone is on the same page: politics is your motivation, not unbiased science. You base your world view on politics, most skeptics, myself included, base our views on reality. Hmm-m-m?
Yep. That is the central difference between alarmists and skeptical scientists. Deny it all you want, but just like being wrong about the ‘consensus’, you are wrong about who the deniers are. You’re on that list…
As someone on the ‘pressurized CO2’ thread points out:
When the CO2 levels fall to 280ppm again, there will be nobody left who knows the CO2 is there, much less how to unsequester it. In the interim, it’s leftist paradise! Good intentions, road to hell?
finally, this is all the peanut gallery has left for an argument:
He has no feet, having shot off both of them himself a long time ago.
Pathetic, no? And as usual: could not be more wrong. Gates still has multiple imprints of my size 14 brogans on his posterior, from trying to argue with me.
Gates has yet to understand that any number multiplied by zero is still zero. Go figure…
Socks sez:
You should know better than to make a statement of that nature without evidence
I have posted a mountain of scientific evidence. Don’t blame others just because you are incapable of understanding.
Dbstealey…..
You have NEVER posted any evidence that putting limits on the human emissions of CO2 will exterminate all life on earth.
Soxy sez:
You have NEVER posted any evidence that putting limits on the human emissions of CO2 will exterminate all life on earth.
And Black is White, Down is Up, Ignorance is Strength…
socks could not look more stupid. I have posted plenty of evidence, he is just too lazy to look it up. And of course, there is no need to dig up evidence that plants and animals require a miniumum level of CO2. That is a given.
I can easily provide a mountain of evidence showing that limit, but why? Will the religious True Believer socks accept it?
No, he will not. His mind is made up, and closed tight. Socks will never listen to facts or reason, if they contradict his religious belief system. So why bother? No one else questions the fact that there is a lower limit. Only Mr Über-stooopid…
Next, from the ridiculous article claiming that sea level rise is accelerating, we find this pertinemt comment:
They know that what they have done is dishonest. They know they have distorted the truth. They know they are liars. They have made their bed and now the world knows the kind of twisted leftists they are. (I would have said leftist liars, but that’s repititious.)
That applies to the two site pests here, too. I think they know the truth [but I could be wrong]. The truth is that there are NO verifiable measurements quantifying AGW. Not a single one. [Disclaimer: I think that AGW exists. But that is because of my understanding of radiative physics, not because there is any quantifiable AGW measurement. Because there aren’t any such measurements.]
Planet Earth is behaving exactly as if natural variability is the sole driver. Therefore, CO2 can be completely disregarded as an unnecessary ‘extraneous variable’ [per Occam’s Razor]. The ‘carbon’ scare is an invented, fabricated and deceptive false alarm. There is NO credible evidence supporting it.
And yet… and yet… despite ZERO evidence supporting their absurd runaway global warming scare, we have folks who are absolutely fixated on that nonsense.
I think they know the score. They just cannot admit it. Thus: prevarication, obfuscation, off topic sniping, desperation, changing the subject, baseless alarmism, deflection, and all the other disreputable tactics that the alarmist crowd constantly engages in. They know what they’re doing…
…and so do we.
” I have posted plenty of evidence”
…
Really?…..give us an example of the evidence you posted that shows that placing limits on human emissions of CO2 will result in the extermination of all life on earth.
Evidence: Roscoe P. Coal Trains (Little Jimmy Hansen) of DEATH! The oceans are gonna boil and we’re all GONNA DIE! Oh, THE HUMANITY!!!
Socrates,
I did indeed see that comment. I’ve seen variations of it elsewhere. “We’re already dangerously close to the lower limit at which plants can survive,” is a common one. Does not 280 ppmv being the canonical pre-industrial CO2 level not have meaning? Maybe some folks don’t know. DB isn’t one of those folks. Incidental ignorance is not the man’s issue.
dbstealey,
What a preposterously stupid “argument”. In the name of all that is logical and allegedly self-serving, why would I advocate for expensive policies on my dime if I didn’t think there was some benefit for doing so? At best you’ve got me on being hoodwinked by a political conspiracy which has fooled me into thinking the “factual” basis represents reality.
To convince me that you are correct, you need to make reasoned arguments about the factual basis. Yet here you are pretending omniscience and manufacturing motive.
Never mind that this subthread is you vainly attempting to defend a friggin’ survey. Otherwise known as science by popularity. Me n’ Socks are already on record as saying the 97% meme is PR. For my part, I am aware of the political motivations behind it. It galled me when Obama said, “The science is settled” because nothing could be further from my perception of the truth.
I am reminded of George Carlin’s take on Mark Twain’s aphorism, “Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
I wouldn’t go so far as to call you stupid. As I see it, you write incredibly stupid things and have an exceptional knack for then claiming it’s the “peanut gallery” dragging the … discussion … into the mud. Which aggravates me a great deal. So yes, I often let my emotions get the better of me and lash out in retaliation.
My hypothesis is that’s exactly your intention. A good intention, I’m sure.
Brandon,
..
” Otherwise known as science by popularity. ”
…
As clearly demonstrated by this posting.
..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/13/anticipation/#comment-1835882
dbstealey,
It’s a start.
Difficult to prove a negative.
I think you meant “primary” driver. “Sole” driver is logically inconsistent with “I think that AGW exists.” It’s also problematic that you apparently trust the measurements which support natural variability, but not the ones which support the human component. By and large, consensus researchers provide evidence of both.
Gates,
Whatsa matter? Getting bored?
Now you’re either back to cheating your employer, or daytime TV is getting old. That’s how I see it, anyway. Prove me wrong.
Anyway, the onus is on you to show conclusively that AGW exists. But so far, you can’t even provide a simple measurement of AGW. Since you’ve failed to corroborrate AGW, where does that leave you?
It’s tough being a climate alarmist these days, isn’t it? Even Planet Earth is making a fool of the alarmist crowd.
Finally: “consensus researchers”, heh
dbstealey doing science by non sequitur. Again.
OK Socks, your definition says:
con·trar·i·an noun \kən-ˈtrer-ē-ən, kän-\
: a person who takes an opposite or different position or attitude from other people
Well, that seems to be you.
So I guess: projection, as usual.
Working that appeal to popularity again, DB? I thought that was the whole problem with the climate consensus position.
Dbstealey is working the WUWT consensus view.
So that’s what I get from the peanut gallery? Off-topic sniping? Do you have a problem being seen as having the minority point of view? I have numbers, you know. ☺
dbstealey,
There’s an actual topic here? What is this thread … oh yes … radical Muslims kill some cartoonists in Paris and suddenly conservative America cares about the French … something something … free speech …. liberals are bad … AGW is a fraud.
I didn’t get the point, and don’t like being an enabler. Sorry for not following the script.
Socrates,
My second chuckle of the day. My first one was how the first couple of paragraphs of this post clashed with the headline: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/12/another-bias-in-temperature-measurements-discovered/
Brandon says:
I didn’t get the point
That’s often the case. I’d say, “…and your point is…?”
But, like, you have no point. As you told us.
No one is forcing you to raise the background noise level here, you know.
dbstealey,
The context snip doesn’t work real well when … you know … the whole context of my comment is there for all to read without much digging.
And how do you know my taskmasters aren’t holding a gun to my head instead of paying me to be their flack? [gasp] Maybe the evil warmunists are holding me hostage!
Socks says:
Dbstealey is working the WUWT consensus view.
Yes. The correct view. While socks is working on the debunked alarmist view — the only kind of ‘work’ he does, apparently.
“The correct view.”
..
Do you have any evidence of this?
Or is this statement a matter of your “opinion?”
Michael 2,
That would defeat the purpose of being in code … did you mean not intentionally encoded? Either way, I may have misunderstood something.
Yup.
[chortle] I agree.
I’m still with you.
It’s been … a long time … since I took sociology, but that’s probably where I was introduced to the concept of moral relativism. Which to me made some sense then, but I resisted it, and now which makes a whole lot of sense. That was a bit of a journey.
What it comes down to for me is this: politics is low-contact warfare. Pure and simple might makes right. The losers whine about their “rights” being quashed. Sometimes I’d agree, but only when my own definition of what I believe it is to be a soverign person is violated.
This particular discussion is about contrarian climate views not being considered, heard, taken seriously, believed, accepted, etc., on air, at major conferences, in major peer-reviewed journals, by (some) major newspapers, etc. That sounds like whining to me and I don’t have much sympathy for it. Science doesn’t get done by whining any more than it gets done by conforming to some pre-determined conclusion. It gets done by being properly skeptical and producing new knowledge. Or more accurately, making new inferences about how things work which are not quite right, but not as wrong as the previous set of assumptions and conclusions.
As someone wise once said, “Shut up and calculate.”
The very same magazine that made a cartoon that was considered “anti-Semitic”. They immediately sacked the cartoonist.
Aligned in solidarity were several mass murderers. Sarkozy (90K+ Libyans, dead), Poroschenko (~5K Ukrainians, dead), Merkel (~3K Greeks, dead). Last but not the least Netayahoo who is personally responsible for a minimum 21K dead Palestinians.
Brandon Gates (January 11, 2015 at 8:08 pm) “In sum, we can’t be certain AGW even exists, but we are absolutely certain it has stopped.”
It would be slightly more accurate to say “GW” has stopped and many are not, and never were, certain about the “A” part. In fact, the “A” part could still exist despite no “GW” in the presence of an anti-GW force balancing the “A” part.
Michael 2, Now see, that’s a reasonable answer.
Does it cover all the bases? ☺
Well now, next time you know how to answer me.
[Snip. David Appell is one of very few persona non grata here. Banned by Anthony for repeated nastiness and violation of site Policy. Good to see him still reading WUWT, though. ~ mod.]