| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1271
Location: U.S.A.
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:30 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
You're the one not talking rationally. You repeatedly made false statements (e.g., "if you go outside the 30-year window you can't show a period of higher temperatures"), and when each was shown to be false, you resorted to abusing the forums by making posting redundant posts full of nonsense about spanking (I count four of them).
All you did was post a bunch of strawmen (like claiming that I said that the warming trend has stopped), make false and scientifically ignorant statements (like claiming that there were no higher temperatures prior to the 30-year window, which is fucking laughable), and then repeatedly dick-dance around claiming *spank* victory.
You haven't fooled anybody, and nobody is interesting in listening to you immaturely spout nonsense because you think getting the las word amounts to success.
mcmonkeyspanker &>/dev/null
_________________
Obama killed bin Laden like Nixon was the first man on the Moon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Prenj
n00b
Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 4
Location: Mostar, BiH
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You guys are like Dynasty.
Catfight and all  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | | You repeatedly made false statements (e.g., "if you go outside the 30-year window you can't show a period of higher temperatures") |
You chose a five hundred million year timescale to make a point about anthropogenic warming. I regret to inform you that the industrial revolution isn't quite that old. The human race isn't even that old. Hell, there weren't even any mammals five hundred million years ago. It's so far back in time that the earth's surface had an unrecognisable, alien, cartography dominated by the two supercontinents, Gondwana and Laurasia.
And this is supposed to illuminate the discussion on current climate trends... How about you try the exercise again?
| BoneKracker wrote: | | you resorted to abusing the forums by making posting redundant posts full of nonsense about spanking (I count four of them). |
No: you've got to learn that if you abuse science you're going to get spanked.
| BoneKracker wrote: | | All you did was post a bunch of strawmen (like claiming that I said that the warming trend has stopped), make false and scientifically ignorant statements (like claiming that there were no higher temperatures prior to the 30-year window, which is fucking laughable), and then repeatedly dick-dance around claiming *spank* victory. |
You claimed there was some kind of "significance" in your cherry-picked hottest years (and you didn't even know which years were hottest). If they are not significant with respect to climate change, then what?
| BoneKracker wrote: | You haven't fooled anybody, and nobody is interesting in listening to you immaturely spout nonsense because you think getting the las word amounts to success.
mcmonkeyspanker &>/dev/null |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgCq7oQ-dZE
_________________
the underlay overlay
Last edited by mcgruff on Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:54 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Prenj wrote: | You guys are like Dynasty.
Catfight and all |
Mess with science and you're messing with me 
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prenj
n00b
Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 4
Location: Mostar, BiH
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mcgruff wrote: | | Prenj wrote: | You guys are like Dynasty.
Catfight and all |
Mess with science and you're messing with me |
Sure, but winning the argument doesn't mean you get the last say, you present your views, other side disagrees, and you can agree to disagree.
Oh screw it, we need a marathon thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1271
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think you meant to say "getting the last word doesn't mean winning the argument". Neither does claiming victory, or making appeals to ridicule. Everybody who reads this can judge for themselves who really got "spanked".
_________________
Obama killed bin Laden like Nixon was the first man on the Moon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
@Prenj
Everyone can have their own opinions but you can't have your own science. Logic, reason and evidence set strict boundaries outside of which one cannot make meaningful statements.
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prenj
n00b
Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 4
Location: Mostar, BiH
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mcgruff wrote: | @Prenj
Everyone can have their own opinions but you can't have your own science. Logic, reason and evidence set strict boundaries outside of which one cannot make meaningful statements. |
What you call logic and reason is interpretation of statistical data. You should know better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1271
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Being jjust plain blatantly wrong is also neither "logic and reason" nor "science". Neither is knee-jerking and creating strawmen because you're a brainwashed global warming religionist who can't think for himself and just prematurely ejaculates all over everybody in the room with canned responses to arguments that nobody even made.
He's been wrong right across the board, with fail after knee-jerk after fail.
1. It is an undeniable fact that average global land and surface temperature did not increase from 2005 to present. 2. It's an undeniable fact that the overall temperature trend is one of cooling (as I shows with multiple graphs). 3. He is flat-ass wrong that there are no warmer temperatures outside of his arbitrary, cherry-picked little 30-year window. 4. He's absurdly wrong to claim that natural causes of warming are not relevant to the subject of climate change. 5. His ridiculous argument that the warming has not stopped is a strawman, because I never made such a claim. 6. I also never claimed there was a "ten-year cooling period".
_________________
Obama killed bin Laden like Nixon was the first man on the Moon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
@prenj
There's nothing wrong with using statistics to analyse data. If there is scope for interpretation this does not mean anything goes. The data sets bounds on what can reasonably be said.
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1271
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thus spake Mr. Scyents, who doesn't even know what the term "degrees of freedom" means and probably couldn't run a basic ANOVA to save his own life.
_________________
Obama killed bin Laden like Nixon was the first man on the Moon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | | 2. It's an undeniable fact that the overall temperature trend is one of cooling (as I shows with multiple graphs). |
No you are wrong. The sheer scale of anthropogenic forcing overrides all other factors - to such an extent that it can potentially affect the ice age cycle. CO2 cooks the planet, and has done so in the past.
[SPANK!]
| BoneKracker wrote: | | 3. He is flat-ass wrong that there are no warmer temperatures outside of his arbitrary, cherry-picked little 30-year window. |
You just don't seem to get how climate normals are calculated - a fact which causes me to doubt your claimed expertise in statistics. This is not cherry-picking: it is specifically designed to prevent cherry-picking.
[SPANK!]
| BoneKracker wrote: | | 4. He's absurdly wrong to claim that natural causes of warming are not relevant to the subject of climate change. |
Of course they are. The current warming trend is not natural though.
| BoneKracker wrote: | | 1. It is an undeniable fact that average global land and surface temperature did not increase from 2005 to present. |
| BoneKracker wrote: | | 5. His ridiculous argument that the warming has not stopped is a strawman, because I never made such a claim. |
You claim that cherry-picked hottest years are significant (at least you've finally figured out which ones were the hottest so that's something I guess). If they're not significant with respect to climate trends, then what?
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prenj
n00b
Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 4
Location: Mostar, BiH
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Im outta here, Im more of a taoist than confucianist anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1271
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mcgruff wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | 2. It's an undeniable fact that the overall temperature trend is one of cooling (as I shows with multiple graphs). |
No you are wrong. The sheer scale of anthropogenic forcing overrides all other factors - to such an extent that it can potentially affect the ice age cycle. CO2 cooks the planet, and has done so in the past. |
Facts are facts and trend analysis is trend analysis. That's mathematics. The trend is either positive or negative. The fact is that it's negative. You said it was positive. That makes you wrong, as plain as the nose on your face.
Secondly, on the separate issue of the relative impact of anthropogenic forcing compared to natural forces, we don't actually have any freaking idea. We have theories. You have a real problem dealing with uncertainty. You treat many things as facts that are actually quite nebulous. That is how children think. The reality is that we think anthropogenic effects may override all other factors.
Third, you just contradicted yourself. You had claimed there were no warmer temperatures than the present, and yet you have acknowledged that Greenhouse Earth once occurred.
Fourth, Greenhouse Earth did not "cook the planet"; it created the most abundant period of life in its history.
| mcgruff wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | 3. He is flat-ass wrong that there are no warmer temperatures outside of his arbitrary, cherry-picked little 30-year window. |
You just don't seem to get how climate normals are calculated - a fact which causes me to doubt your claimed expertise in statistics. This is not cherry-picking: it is specifically designed to prevent cherry-picking. |
We are simply talking about the fact that you made a claim which is false. You claimed there had been no warmer temperatures, and that is enormously wrong.
There are valid reasons for adopting a 30-year window of analysis for certain purposes, but I have no doubt that they are beyond your grasp. A 30-year analysis is not universally applicable, and it has no relevance to the question of the relative salience of natural and anthropogenic causes of climate change. You see, in real science, things like assumptions, constraints, limits of applicability, and so on, are kept in mind. That's why people like you, who dabble in pseudo-science and cannot grasp such things, should not be allowed within arms reach of it.
| mcgruff wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | 4. He's absurdly wrong to claim that natural causes of warming are not relevant to the subject of climate change. |
Of course they are. The current warming trend is not natural though. |
What's that got to do with the price of sardines in Manitoba? We weren't even discussing that. Oh, you knee-jerked because of your programming, and assumed that I was claiming that man's activities are not a significant contributor to the the short-term warming spike we are experiencing now? Did I say anything even remotely resembling that? Another case of premature ejaculation again? You ought to get that looked at. 
| mcgruff wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | 1. It is an undeniable fact that average global land and surface temperature did not increase from 2005 to present. |
| BoneKracker wrote: | | 5. His ridiculous argument that the warming has not stopped is a strawman, because I never made such a claim. |
You claim that cherry-picked hottest years are significant (at least you've finally figured out which ones were the hottest so that's something I guess). If they're not significant with respect to climate trends, then what? |
Where did I claim they were significant? Another strawman? More premature ejaculation? Holy twitching testicles, Batman.
The six-year "plateau" since 2005 is no more significant than your 30-year "trend".
_________________
Obama killed bin Laden like Nixon was the first man on the Moon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | | The trend is either positive or negative. The fact is that it's negative. You said it was positive. That makes you wrong, as plain as the nose on your face. |
You mean the 500,000,000 year trend? (!) We've already dealt with that FFS.
[SPANK!]
| BoneKracker wrote: | | Secondly, on the separate issue of the relative impact of anthropogenic forcing compared to natural forces, we don't actually have any freaking idea. |
No: you don't have any freakin idea about climate science. The level of certainty is not "on the balance of probabilities" it's "beyond any reasonable doubt". There's a saying: give them an inch and they'll take a mile. You take a tiny atoms of uncertainty and try to spin them into something significant.
[SPANK!]
| BoneKracker wrote: | | Third, you just contradicted yourself. You had claimed there were no warmer temperatures than the present, and yet you have acknowledged that Greenhouse Earth once occurred. |
I think you'll find that I didn't, and that you are just flailing around like a naughty child trying to deflect attention away from your own epic failure. Time you had another good...
[SPANK!]
| BoneKracker wrote: | | Fourth, Greenhouse Earth did not "cook the planet"; it created the most abundant period of life in its history. |
CO2, and other greenhouse gases have the potential to make very rapid and dramatic changes in the climate which outweigh other forcings. That is what I meant by cook the planet.
Massive species loss is an inevitable result of sudden, rapid climate change, whatever might happen later. It is rather disingenuous to focus on the biosphere tens of thousands of years after the event, once it has had time to recover, and ignore the preceding climate catastrophe.
| BoneKracker wrote: | | There are valid reasons for adopting a 30-year window of analysis for certain purposes, but I have no doubt that they are beyond your grasp. |
Apparently not because I constantly find myself trying to explain them to you, but it never seems to sink in. For your deliberate, handwaving obfuscation...
[SPANK!]
| mcgruff wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | 1. It is an undeniable fact that average global land and surface temperature did not increase from 2005 to present. |
| BoneKracker wrote: | | 5. His ridiculous argument that the warming has not stopped is a strawman, because I never made such a claim. |
You claim that cherry-picked hottest years are significant (at least you've finally figured out which ones were the hottest so that's something I guess). If they're not significant with respect to climate trends, then what? |
Where did I claim they were significant?[/quote]
How about you check back on page 2? I've been trying to pin you down ever since but you refuse to explain what you mean.
| BoneKracker wrote: | | blah blah blah... none of this changes the fact that, none of the years since 1997 have been warmer than 1997. Ergo, the average temperature has not increased in the period 1997 to present. You can sputter and mumble and cherry-pick all you want to try to obscure the significance of that, but the facts are the facts. |
Once again...
| BoneKracker wrote: | | The six-year "plateau" since 2005 is no more significant than your 30-year "trend". |
Why do you keep mentioning this? What do you think it signifies?
I did warn you that you were going to get spanked if you didn't behave. This hurts me much more than it hurts you.
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 654
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
BK, the cult of anthropomorphic global warming loses influence each year. Knowing this, would you be shocked to see the Tweedle Twins still ejaculating this nonsense in 10 years?
_________________
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | You know, personally I've never been the greatest fan of Negroes |
The Philosophy of Liberty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Old School
Apprentice
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 230
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Boney wrote: | | Holy twitching testicles, Batman. |
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Earth wrote: | | BK, the cult of anthropomorphic global warming loses influence each year. Knowing this, would you be shocked to see the Tweedle Twins still ejaculating this nonsense in 10 years? |
Go on. Say something specific about climate science. I dare you. There's plenty more spank to go around.
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 654
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prenj
n00b
Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 4
Location: Mostar, BiH
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Earth wrote: | | By spank you mean ignore all evidence that contradicts your preconceived notions. Each instance brought up to you lot about the sham is immediately ignored. |
I haven't ignored anything. BK did not understand which years were hottest in the recent temperature record and was quite properly corrected on that. He has not explained what significance he thinks recent, hot years have despite repeated questioning, although he has at least been forced to admit they are not evidence against the current warming trend. He has continually attacked the thirty-year minimum resolution standard - casting severe doubts on his claimed expertise in statistics - and has made some farcical comparisons with half a billion year old temperature records. Throw in lots of indignation, hand-waving, and a general unwillingness to admit to grievous conceptual errors and you've got pretty much exactly what you'd expect from BK on climate: a whole pile of anti-science dogma and hot air.
I'd suggest that your knowledge is in such desperate need of remedial attention that you don't even know how to ask a good question, never mind discuss the intricacies of climate science. First you need to get a basic grounding in the science:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Newcomers-Start-Here.html
You can, if you like, pick the most damning of the issues you have raised, as you see it, and we will discuss that - but read the above first.
You must also accept that matters of science are decided by science, ie logic, reason, evidence, and - above all - published papers in reputable journals which set out detailed, formal arguments and have passed through the process of peer review.
_________________
the underlay overlay
Last edited by mcgruff on Wed Feb 08, 2012 3:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Noam nailed it.
It's interesting to look at this as an issue of corporate mis-governance. The howls of outrage against the bankers who created the economic crisis are so loud - so why the silence on oil-industry funded denial? The economic effects of climate change will make the credit crunch look like a storm in a teacup.
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
energyman76b
Advocate
Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 2009
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
you know, your first link refers to Bild.. which makes your whole argument invalid instantly. Bild is known for lying, spinning and being pro-CDU (and anti-environmental) for like.. forever. But nice try. i don't even care to click on the rest of your links. If that is all you got, you have lost the moment you clicked 'submit'.
_________________
| AidanJT wrote: |
...because pro-lifers (especially the catholic variety) are sick, depraved, satanic ....
|
...'people' - had to clean it up to not be offensive...
"The secret of politics? Make a good treaty with Russia." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 654
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| energyman76b wrote: | | i don't even care to click on the rest of your links. If that is all you got, you have lost the moment you clicked 'submit'. |
As I said...
| The Earth wrote: | | My bet, you'll ignore every single bit of evidence that goes against your religion. |
_________________
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | You know, personally I've never been the greatest fan of Negroes |
The Philosophy of Liberty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 128
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Off the Wall
