Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Lockjaw]

Yes.

 

Although, there are 3 "scientists" that currently hold that view:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Global_warming_is_not_occurring_or_has_ceased

 

But what is notable about them is that their fellow deniers don't even agree with them. Frankly their views are an embarassment to a small group of lobbiests notable for their scant regard for the scientific method or facts.

 

Crossed threads there, WC. I was referring to posters on here...

 

Oh, and my question was regarding climate change, not global warming.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Lockjaw

[Wildcat]

Ha ha .... your second paragraph above has given me a little inkling as to why some posters on here call you Wikicat!

 

Any-old-how ... That's by the by. Catholic Church and heliocentricism is also by the by. What I'm trying to show here is as follows.

 

A poster used the example of heliocentrics vs church as a, perfectl valid, illustration that the consensus is not, by defiition, correct. He could have, equally effectively, used the example of Wegener or many others. Your response was, effectively.

 

Now you and I, assuming you actually do know about this and are not simply dipping into wiki for your evidence, both know there's much more to it than that but, again that's by the by.

 

The fact is, you did not acknowledge his perfectly valid point (which probably, I accept, has been made many times before) you simply dismissed it with the comment above.

 

This is one of the issues I have with the way this debate is being conducted. Difficult points are, simply, dismissed as unimportant or, the deliverer of the point discredited. This, among other recent development does not promote confidence in the pro-AGW.

 

WRT the discrediting of those opposing views ... Here's a source which discredits some so-called scientists.

 

I must say misrepresenting a debate is a strange way to make your point.

 

My response to the point about Giodano Bruno was perfectly valid and something you have not even sought to dispute, except by taking it out of the context of the wider debate.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=5897825#post5897825

 

As you are well aware it was a part of a longer discussion including responses like this one:

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5896530&postcount=1390

 

By chosing to debate one post by me without reference to its context, it is you that is the one guilty of the misrepresentations, not me.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

Crossed threads there, WC. I was referring to posters on here...

 

In which case your secondary point picking LibertyBell up on his comments about the debate was even less valid than I took it to be.

[Lockjaw]

In which case your secondary point picking LibertyBell up on his comments about the debate was even less valid than I took it to be.

 

This is part of your problem, WC. I wasn't "picking him up"! I was simply attempting to clarify his point.

 

I'm gonna dip out of this ongoing discussion with you after I've addressed your other point above as it is my opinion that your faith in your position is causing you to be blinkered. The above quote is a perfect example of evidence of this. I find this surprising given the posts of yours I have observed on many other subjects on this forum almost all of which I thoroughly agree with.

 

Also, I have made it clear on a number of occasions that my position isn't far from yours (without the over-zealous desire to put down everyone whose isn't) so it seems silly to become embroiled in arguments with you.

 

Having said that .... see below....

Edited February 6, 2010 by Lockjaw

[Lockjaw]

I must say misrepresenting a debate is a strange way to make your point.

 

My response to the point about Giodano Bruno was perfectly valid and something you have not even sought to dispute, except by taking it out of the context of the wider debate.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=5897825#post5897825

 

As you are well aware it was a part of a longer discussion including responses like this one:

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5896530&postcount=1390

 

By chosing to debate one post by me without reference to its context, it is you that is the one guilty of the misrepresentations, not me.

 

Come on now, WC! Either you're not reading the posts properly or you are deliberately tryng to muddy the waters.

 

While the poster may or may not have been correct about the execution of Bruno, his point was that the consensus is not always right. You were aware of that but chose, instead, to focus on a potential innacuracy.

 

Yes, I am aware of the debate but the post in your second link above was regarding justification of an incorrect consensus (fair enough ... the evidence suggested the Earth was flat ... I don't have a problem there) and where the burden of proof lies.

 

The point you dismissed in the Brunogate post was that the consensus is not always correct. This was the point I took issue with. I made that clear in my post and added an extra example, Wegener. I did not misrepresent you or take your comments out of context.

 

I've said this before but I think your over-zealous desire to steamroller the oposition is clouding your judgement.

[Wildcat]

This is part of your problem, WC. I wasn't "picking him up"! I was simply attempting to clarify his point.

 

I'm gonna dip out of this ongoing discussion with you after I've addressed your other point above as it is my opinion that your faith in your position is causing you to be blinkered. The above quote is a perfect example of evidence of this. I find this surprising given the posts of yours I have observed on many other subjects on this forum almost all of which I thoroughly agree with.

 

Also, I have made it clear on a number of occasions that my position isn't far from yours (without the over-zealous desire to put down everyone whose isn't) so it seems silly to become embroiled in arguments with you.

 

Having said that .... see below....

 

Generally when someone uses a rolleyes: in response to a post a reasonable interpretation would be that they are picking the other person up on a point, not seeking clarification.

[Wildcat]

Come on now, WC! Either you're not reading the posts properly or you are deliberately tryng to muddy the waters.

 

While the poster may or may not have been correct about the execution of Bruno, his point was that the consensus is not always right. You were aware of that but chose, instead, to focus on a potential innacuracy.

 

I had already dealt with the view that a consensus is not always right by making the argument about where the burden of proof lies.

 

Yes, I am aware of the debate but the post in your second link above was regarding justification of an incorrect consensus (fair enough ... the evidence suggested the Earth was flat ... I don't have a problem there) and where the burden of proof lies.

 

The point you dismissed in the Brunogate post was that the consensus is not always correct. This was the point I took issue with. I made that clear in my post and added an extra example, Wegener. I did not misrepresent you or take your comments out of context.

 

I've said this before but I think your over-zealous desire to steamroller the oposition is clouding your judgement.

 

The point you are picking me up on, is spurious. I made the point you complain I omitted just a few posts preceding the one you are talking about. Indeed my main point in that post was about burden of proof and asking where was the evidence of a conspiracy.

 

There was no need for me to expand on that point, because it had already been made and was clearly visible on the page, had it been a few pages previously I might have linked to it in addition to my response, but in context it did not seem necessary.

 

The point about Giordano Bruno, was preceded by an "Incidentally" and was worth making because the example used was wrong.

 

You are over zealous in your criticisms because you are looking at my posts in isolation and not in the context of the ongoing debate.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Wildcat

[Lockjaw]

Generally when someone uses a rolleyes: in response to a post a reasonable interpretation would be that they are picking the other person up on a point, not seeking clarification.

 

OMG!

 

*bangs head against wall*

 

YES ... I WAS picking him up on the final point ... hence the rolled eyes. The second point was seeking clarification.

 

On the first point, I was agreeing with him ....I assume you noticed that and chose to ignore it as it didn't fit your little black and white argument.

 

So, agreement, clarification seeking and criticism ... all in the same post ... Objective people are able to do that ... You should try objectivity some time ... It's fun.

 

I notice that you have a longer post below. I will read it, as with future posts on here ... I will not reply to it, though, as, wrt discussions with you, I'm outahere since your responses are becoming exasperating because you are unable to objectively consider arguments against your position.

 

My lack of response is neither acceptance that your post is correct nor a dismissal of the points made therein.

 

Have fun.

[Wildcat]

OMG!

 

*bangs head against wall*

 

YES ... I WAS picking him up on the final point ... hence the rolled eyes. The second point was seeking clarification.

 

On the first point, I was agreeing with him ....I assume you noticed that and chose to ignore it as it didn't fit your little black and white argument.

 

So, agreement, clarification seeking and criticism ... all in the same post ... Objective people are able to do that ... You should try objectivity some time ... It's fun.

 

I notice that you have a longer post below. I will read it, as with future posts on here ... I will not reply to it, though as, regarding discussions with you, I'm outahere since your responses are becoming exasperating because you are unable to objectively consider arguments against your position.

 

My lack of response is neither acceptance that your post is correct nor a dismissal of the points made therein.

 

Have fun.

 

Objective people can indeed make several different points in a post, but just because you agreed on some points doesn't make your post objective.

 

Nor does taking my posts out of context to make a claim I am not being objective, seem very objective or conducive to rational debate.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Wildcat

[convert]

Has anyone read the ENSO advisory dated 4th Feb from NOAA?

 

 

Looks like there is a pretty strong El Niño effect at the moment, that will be with us well into spring 2010.

 

So that'll be a natural cause of global wombling again then... Never mind just tax us a little more and we can stop nature in it's tracks