You’re the one who made the 10:20:30 accusation; how can it be unrelated for me to point out that (a) you supplied a perfectly good criterion, and (b) I merely agreed with you? You stated that I’m acting like this hasn’t been dealt with; how can it be unrelated for me to reply that I’m merely acting like you’ve supplied a perfectly good criterion? You posted that link; how can it be unrelated for me to point out that neither of its claims apply here?
I’m afraid I have no idea what you mean by “applying falsification the way you did”; that’s the way I always apply falsification. I asked for your criterion, and you supplied one; I was then satisfied, and you then – accused me of going the 10:20:30 route, which makes no sense.
You’re misquoting me; I said that “we call it climate change now,” because we in fact do: I call it climate change, and you call it climate change, and the IPCC – calls it climate change to the point of naming itself accordingly; were I to tell my younger self what was in store for the better part of two decades and counting, I’d need to specify that it’s not “global warming” but “climate change” to keep him from mistakenly jumping to the wrong conclusion.
You’re simply mixing up causation and correlation: Luntz thought his idea would have traction because it’s what jumps out at anybody who hears both terms: the climate changes regardless of whether the globe warms, such that folks pretty much can’t help but note the difference: one encompasses the other, and includes the opposite of the other, and is for that reason preferred by bodies like the IPCC, and people like me, and the aforementioned “we”.
Luntz was right about how people react to the term, and sensibly recommended its use; the term, however, predates Luntz, and is sensibly used by all sorts of people.
That is weird, as I am certain I couldn’t scroll past the first page before. But the questions make me sure that having gotten the news from the web is not an excuse, as that’s one of the news sources allowed.
And Joey P’s problem isn’t relevant, as the question is “Why do Fox News viewers seem to absorb less via osmosis”
And, Waldo, the problem with Deniers is that they go around finding the holes in peoples arguments, full well knowing that there are other arguments without such holes in them. They will attack the people with the weakest arguments, the ones that they know will not be able to work within their “rules,” and then act as if they have defended their own arguments. It’s the same tactics creationists and hoaxers use.
And I’m sorry, but your debate techniques seem awfully similar. I don’t blame GIGO for misinterpreting you.
In his original post, and the following ones, he is clearly still full of “his younger self” And the context does show that the idea is indeed to claim that it was changed and the change needed to be ridiculed (if “the younger self” already knew that it was not necessary for that “we call it climate change now” item to crop up like a brown M&M echoing denier sources, and as the other “unconvincing” items also come from denialist sources it becomes really silly to claim that he came up with them all alone.)
What I see TOWP doing is a “we always have been at war with Eastacia” maneuver wile he is the one taking down the sign saying “defeat Eurasia!” that he put up himself.
But I don’t limit it to* “the people with the weakest arguments,”* or those I know “will not be able to work within their ‘rules’”; I put the same question to everyone who offers up a prediction, asking any and all for their falsification criteria of choice. I put the same question to creationists and hoaxers; I’d put it to anyone who predicted global cooling instead of global warming, I’d put it to anyone who predicts the outcome of a Super Bowl or a presidential election – and I praise GIGO for having supplied a fine response.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
In his original post, and the following ones, he is clearly still full of “his younger self” And the context does show that the idea is indeed to claim that it was changed and the change needed to be ridiculed
[/QUOTE]
But I didn’t believe “the change needs to be ridiculed”; I believed that failing to change should be ridiculed. You have my position exactly backwards.
[QUOTE=Euphonious Polemic]
and more blah blah blah.
Could you please take your climate change hoax crap, moon landing conspiracy and/or Kennedy was killed by space lizards crap to another thread please?
[/QUOTE]
Leaving aside that I believe climate change is real, and have never called it a hoax, simply note who brought this tangent into this thread to begin with. You dismiss the 10:20:30 point as “blah blah blah”; who, here, first mentioned it? To whom did I merely reply?
And you did this maneuver before, in the end you do want your cake and eat it too.
The point here is that even your escape hatch is a flawed one too, similarly to what happened with the “no warming” “it is not cooling” points, both were flawed. Likewise claiming that I have your position backwards is not saving you from realizing that you were talking nonsense, the point was that even “failing to change” was a stupid point to assimilate from the denier media as no change was needed or made by the scientists.
There was no flaw when your original falsification criterion was in effect; it was, then, entirely relevant to mention how many years had gone by with “no warming” – because each one that passed kept bringing us closer to falsifying it. But once you moved the goalposts to a new and different prediction, the mere lack of warming stopped being relevant; a lack of warming – for decades or even centuries – wouldn’t have counted against it; I then dropped the point as a result.
As you’ve now moved the goalposts to a third criterion, the past lack of warming remains irrelevant – except insofar as asking whether (a) the next fourteen years will play out like the last fourteen, and whether (b) it’ll keep on keeping on like that.
The flaw appears only if you ignore that I moved on when you did. Bring back your first test and I’ll of course reply with the same point – but so long as either of your all-new and all-different tests are in effect, my response changes accordingly.
Quite right: the scientists were naming the IPCC after “climate change” rather than “global warming” long before Luntz came on the scene and reached the same conclusion they had.
You are not fooling anyone, it is not that you are now in the more accurate camp (and this will remain doubtful until you do not come forward with the sources that gave you those peculiar ideas), it is that you are inept on your claims that you were not influenced by media and sites that misguided you early.
The impression one gets now is that you are also continuing ad nauseaum to claim that you were correct all along, and that in itself is not necessary, but the longer someone goes repeating a moot point, the longer it is clear that someone is really butt hurt.
The main issue here is that FOX news not only can be condemned for misleading many with the Moon Hoax issue, but they were and they are still seeding doubts not only on climate science but defaming the scientists themselves.
I requested a falsifiable prediction from you; you supplied one; it hasn’t yet been falsified, and I haven’t claimed otherwise.
You later moved the goalposts to a new and different prediction; it also hasn’t been falsified; I likewise haven’t claimed otherwise.
You’ve now moved the goalposts to yet another prediction, which also hasn’t been falsified; I again haven’t claimed otherwise.
So what do you think I’m crowing about being “correct all along” about? You were the one who offered up each prediction; I haven’t yet bothered to offer up a claim of my own about whether your predictions were correct or incorrect. There’s precious little for me to have been “correct all along” about – or, at that, ‘incorrect all along’ about; I’m not the one making a bunch of predictions; that’s your job; I’m just the guy who never yet claimed you got even one of 'em wrong.
Surely you don’t believe further sources are required for the “peculiar idea” that predictions, to be taken seriously, should be falsifiable?
It is, as you say, the main issue; why you and elucidator discussed some other issue before I weighed in likewise is a question only the two of you can answer.
It is called a joke son, others did get it, so stop with your silly chips on your shoulder.
But just like before, your constant efforts do betray yet another lousy tactic of yours: to concentrate on the personal so as to avoid touching the matter at hand, so what do you think of FOX’s efforts on the false equivalency and even direct accusations that there is a conspiracy among scientists?
As you are not especially able to comment then you should not make this your show.
Regarding the misinformation of FOX, it is important to notice that they, like many bloggers that mislead so many on climategate, did rely on people like Bob Carter.
FOX and others did advise many to then use reheated baloney arguments from Carter on the surface data and the scientists, and as mentioned in several threads before, many were fooled on following their sorry advise on what to use for also sorry and dumb debating tactics.
Wouldn’t have, if not for the off-topic hijack that continued for one post too many.
At which point I offered an oh-so-brief correction that should’ve been the end of it, as you lot could’ve swiftly gotten back to the subject at hand.
I’m not sure why you’re including this in a response to me; I don’t rely on FOX, the bloggers, or Bob Carter. I rely on those who make predictions right in front of me, and do so by asking them to specify as needed; they’ve always done so.
You’re built too low, the fast ones go over your head! I keep pitchin’ ‘em and you keep missin’ 'em! You got the keep your eye on the ball! EYE. BALL. Eyeball! Almost had a gag there; joke, that is.
Again, you really need to specify – if you for some reason want to continue this hijack. I certainly don’t pretend that it’s my idea to ask for falsification criteria when folks make predictions; it’s taught in all sorts of schools. I’m likewise not the one who made the predictions in question; none of them were my idea, each prediction came from you. Sensible folks ask, and people like you give one answer after another after another; it’s like playing a fiddle, or something.
