So tell me Brazil, do you like gladiator films?
Lol, another stunning rebuttal.
Has he ever seen a man naked?
No, I’m referring to the bit where you started in with all the crazy talk about cigarettes and ALL-CAPS tax dodges, and I explained that the same reason I don’t take Gigo seriously is the same reason I get those answers right, and you shifted over to saying it wasn’t as bad as you’d thought – suddenly figuring that I’m only intentionally ignorant on only one point, given that I treat Gigo the same way I treat everybody else.
Where in the ‘maybe he is, maybe he isn’t’ spectrum did that little two-step fall?
That’s my point. I don’t need to know the specific reason why it happens; I just need to know that it happens.
I heard the medical experts making falsifiable predictions. I haven’t heard falsifiable predictions from the climate experts.
Great! Let’s hear these falsifiable criteria. I’d also like you to compare them to those involved in the basis of global warming and explain to us why you think they are superior.
Using logic, not that you will, one should realize that for that one would still have to rely on experts to do so.
A lie, as you even acknowledged that they have done so in the past with the data of today.
Your overall point was that they can not do so for the future, so you have to be honest with yourself too.
Oops, sorry, no, I figured you for an ignorant fuck before that. You’re analogous to those who fought against saying smoking caused harm, you’re pretty much the same as the truhters, birthers, and whatever -ers are out there. There’s a shit-ton of money out there feeding you lines and misinformation, also similar to the tobacco situation. You’re not getting any of the cash, of course. Maybe cheaper fuel and energy costs for the time, though at the price of other people’s lives. It’s the blood on your hands that makes you different from the truthers and birthers. Yes, I get that it’s tenuous and distant, but it’s blood nonetheless.
I repeat my humble request. you give one straight question and I give you one straight answer and then we switch.
A good, the condiment for the roast is back, we needed more!
Nothing like web-cojones for a guy who can’t answer a question that doens’t include the phrases “it’s a denier guy/website” or “it’s been debunked, just read MY cite (while not reading others’)”
Nah, everyone can see how deluded you are even on that point.
I already explained that you still continue to ignore that I do check cites before dismissing them, you still need to cite what the heck do you think is new from the denier cites you brought.
Well, when I say I think they cause cancer, it’s because I believe that you can take two sufficiently large groups of significantly similar folks and – upon making sure all else is equal aside from the cigarette smoking – cancer will be more prevalent in the group that smokes cigarettes.
If pressed for details about that falsifiable prediction, I’d naturally spell out exactly what I mean by “sufficiently large” and “significantly similar” and so on – but the point is that I wouldn’t want my kid to smoke cigarettes because I’d genuinely expect such a study to show those results rather than the opposite; if cancer didn’t prove to be more prevalent in the cigarette-smoking group, I’d consider my prediction falsified.
I was hearing that prediction from medical experts back when tobacco was still unbeaten in court. As to how it differs from predictions involving global warming, I haven’t been hearing climate experts likewise put themselves on the line; I only ever hear them talk about falsifiable predictions in the past tense, and only ever hear 'em say a given hypothetical result wouldn’t suffice – never what hypothetical result would.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
A lie, as you even acknowledged that they have done so in the past with the data of today.
Your overall point was that they can not do so for the future, so you have to be honest with yourself too.
[/QUOTE]
Well, yeah. Global warming wasn’t really on my radar until the '90s, and since the first time I heard of it I’ve never actually heard the experts go on to make falsifiable predictions about the future; I’ve only ever heard them refer back to past predictions, in between talking in purely negative terms about what’s to come – mentioning that a given result wouldn’t suffice for falsification, but not going on to spell out what would suffice. I’ve heard other scientists look back with satisfaction while making falsifiable predictions about the future; I’ve never yet actually heard the AGW experts talk like folks who could be wrong.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Using logic, not that you will, one should realize that for that one would still have to rely on experts to do so.
[/QUOTE]
As per Moynihan’s old line about folks being entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts, I suppose. If experts are looking to prove a point about cancer and cigarettes, I’ll listen as they make a falsifiable prediction and then assemble results to make their case – and the other side’s hired experts can have every chance to point out arguable flaws in proposed criteria beforehand, and to question whether the groups really are significantly similar apart from the cigarette-smoking variable – but it’s all so that calling the shot ahead of time means the facts can then carry the day in the end.
What’s the analogy to global warming? Make your case with a falsifiable prediction, giving the other side a chance to make their case if they find your terms unsatisfactory – and then let the facts carry the day.
And yet all I ask from the other side is a falsifiable prediction. Give me a way to know whether you’re wrong and I’ll get down to the serious business of considering whether you’re right. All the money and misinformation failed to stop me from realizing the smoking-caused-harm crowd was correct; the folks looking to establish that link merely named a criterion that would’ve backfired if they’d been mistaken, and the evidence promptly won me over.
That’s the beauty of your “argument”, isn’t it? You have to wait for the future to see if a prediction was true or false. But no matter what point in the future you pick, at that point you can say “Well, it’s just historical data now. What about your prediction for the future after this? Not falsifiable, is it? Then how about you just bugger off?” It’s just a way for you to avoid admitting you’re wrong.
No, the honest approach is to see how well the models fit all available data, meaning historical ones, meaning how well would they have done at predicting the present if used at various times in the past (when the present was the future - slow me down or reread it if this is confusing to you). If you are forced to conclude, however grudgingly, that the models fit the available data, then you have to conclude they’ll predict future data just as accurately. IOW, fuckin’ deal with it, dude.
Glad to see you acknowledging at least that you are just looking at personal experience and not history.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Already given, the only thing you showed all this time was just willful ignorance.
That’s even worse.
You mean you read them and still go back to your clichés?
No, it means that one looks to see if it was the same old, same old. Indeed it was.
You are still not getting do you? You are even wrong on assuming I did not take a look, so drop the misleading and lying sources and look for better ones.
There’s that “concern” thing again.
And another one joins the fight. It’s like the internet version of a SLAPP suit. Overwhelm them with bullshit and they’ll give up out of frustration. Their problem is that most people on this site have long ago recognized their tactics and can see through them. I have to wonder why they have chosen the 1998 talking point. That one is so easy to debunk, as it has been dozens of times. You surely must have something better than that to work with, mustn’t you? I know “Climategate” turned out to be a popcorn fart for you after you were certain that it was the smoking ICBM, but 1998? Really?
Lamar Mundane, as Peter Hadfield (aka Potholer54) said, you can trace the origin of the myth to Bob Carter.
The reach of this cut and copy point spread so much in the denialosphere that it stretches credulity for a poster to claim that he figure it out by himself, specially after the stunt of claiming that he got the idea independently thanks to a UN climate report*… that reports on the warming trend, he used an out of context quote that compares the warmest years and from that he claims that he got the idea.
Sad really. Unless he was an UN climate worker that obscure source would not had been looked at by the average bloke, most likely he got it also from a denier source that misrepresented the quote.
*And swallowing also the “they call it climate change now” myth.