If you are just plugging in terms and pasting the result, without performing any thought, then that’s a problem.
If you aren’t doing that then it’s not a problem.
You appeared to admit that you do use that capability of the website, which in my book is not a debate/discussion.
Priceless 2—The Revelation
Take it any way you want. I’ve finally seen the light: you are right about everything and everybody who disagrees with you at all is a stupid-head denier. Even when they don’t offer an opinion. :roll eyes:
I think, though, the days of you having to bother yourself with all the lesser denier stupid-heads might be coming to a close, as you’ll be the only one in the threads.
So, do carry on…
As it is recommended by experts and even Scientific American I still think you are protesting too much.
The take home lesson is that there is so much supporting data and research out there that it is clear that this attempt at trying to prevent anyone from using those resources is the only resource 
guys like FX have. And another point: sources like Skeptical Science are just following the same idea as talkorigins.org is to evolution.
The best opinion is an educated one.
The mountain of evidence can and it is cataloged by Skeptical Science and others, and as** it is clear once again that you are still ignoring that I did not use that source in the case of the debunking of the research of Shaviv **
I only claim to be more skillful know on remembering where the things are, if I had not a clue about the subject then it would show right away, like for example when people that do not pay attention accuse others of using a “troll” source.
It is not my problem if you think that ignoring what a team of researchers and others did is going to fly, and once again, the information is not coming from Skeptical Science.
WTF are you talking about?
This is supposed to be a discussion/debate/exchange of ideas.
Scientific American has nothing to do with whether you should be using an app to regurgitate pre-defined responses to key terms.
This entire issue could be a topic.
And the not getting the point continues.
Read it again, I did not use Skeptical Science to debunk Shaviv. Be my guest if you only want to show all that you are not paying attention and not dealing with the evidence.
And lo and behold, look what is in that 2010 article.
Isn’t that interesting.
The better to ignore how inadequate the source that you used was, and once again, **I did not use Skeptical Science to debunk Shaviv. **
What is interesting that I can reply to that with no need to find a reference, as Phil Jones reported the use of 1995 was made to get precisely the right response (cherry picking again), what is not reported is that Phil Jones and many others reported in 2011 or 2012 that now it is indeed significantly warmer than 1995.
You’ve got one. Maybe you missed it. I honestly think that it provides a good perspective on some of these issues. Perhaps you’d care to respond. The funny thing is that the NRC document I quote actually goes out of its way to say that they’re not taking a position on some of the research controversies that it discusses on solar effects. The stuff I quoted is stated in the document’s general introduction because it’s not even controversial; it’s just describing the accepted scientific baseline. Yet this is the stuff that FX is trying to “debate”, and not very successfully.
If I may also make a general comment to the larger community, I don’t understand this current obsession about how someone gets information, what’s important is the information that’s posted and the credibility of the source. Most of what I’ve seen GIGO link to is scientifically sound and certainly provides both a credible corroboration and a basis for discussion.
I might contrast that with the nonsense just posted about Shaviv as supposedly some kind of refutation of what is known about solar effects, using as a cite his editorial in the National Post (a right-wing rag infamous for its denialist editorials on climate change) and a link to what is basically James Inhofe’s personal denialist blog, Inhofe being the most scientifically illiterate senator to ever hold office who insists that climate science is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind”. Those kinds of posts are not science. Scientific discussions entail links to scientific literature or to websites that cite such literature, by people who actually understand what they are linking. But I don’t expect science from anyone who posts nonsense like this (refuted here) or any of the dozens of other examples I’ve linked. I understand FX will be your best friend forever if you can ever show him that he was wrong, but he never seems to see those posts.
I’m not talking about that one instance.
I’m talking about all of the other times for the last 2 years you failed to comprehend the words in a post and just posted some crap back that it now appears was generated by just keying in some keywords.
I actually engaged you thinking you would try to understand the point being made.
It’s all quite ironic.
You’re right, discussions with you and others have been good, I just haven’t had time to respond to that one.
It’s just annoying to have wasted energy on an Eliza program operated by GIGO.
Yep.
Actually, it’s not. That is what makes this so priceless.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:1995.9/every:12/plot/rss-land/from:1995.16/every:12/plot/rss-land/from:1995/every:12/plot/rss-land/from:1995.08/every:12/plot/rss-land/from:1995/trend
The numbers don’t lie.
I knew what he was doing, which is why I did what I did in the Pit thread. He bailed on the entire thread when he discovered his app was useless.
I never even thought of reporting it to the Mods. I’m not a narc man.
Many of the ones that still have no clue about what sources were actually used to debunk Shaviv are also ignoring what I have said many times before, a poster is not really important when there is lots of evidence out there. And one should not rely on an anonymous poster on the internet, and specially when there is lots of evidence out there.
It is because I do not think one should rely on what one claims that then cites are important.
And this is because no matter how reliable I could claim to be one should point at where some bit of knowledge came from:
Not what the scientist and others reported, and you are using land readings only.
He’s not going to get it. I keep telling you.
If he could grasp the ramifications of what just happened, he wouldn’t be who he is.
You see? An intelligent person would simply put the right values in, generate a graph, and post a link to it.
That’s an easy way to simply counter something you find is cherry picking.
But GIGO? He doesn’t know how to do that.