Indeed, the political connections he was involved did not take too long to come out:
Well, on second reading I think you are not quite there, no, science “believers” are not changing the concept, that idea came from Frank Luntz as a talking point for conservatives to use, they decided to use climate change alone as global warming was worrisome to test audiences.
It’s a simple thing to answer. That he floods the topic with multiple replies, none of them answering, it’s quite telling.
It’s a fucking Gish Gallup
The gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority, as it appears to paint the “galloper” as an expert in a broad range of subjects and the opponent as an incompetent bumbler who didn’t do their homework before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating opinions.
Oh horseshit. :rolleyes: Who do you think you are fooling here? You basically stick to posting a bunch of bullshit links (half the time in freaking Japanese), make a bunch of idiotic and baseless pronouncements, and of course limit yourself to mainly posting in the Pit. Man up you fucking pussy…if you think you have something real to say about global warming then build an OP in GD and see where it gets you.
-XT
Nope. I’m not using his expertise in physics as a proof point for the veracity of his opinion on climate change. But I am using his world-recognized expertise as a scientist as a proof point for his rational position on whether the evidence, overwhelming as it may be, rises to the level of certitude. Quite frankly, I’m surprised any scientist dealing with such complexity wold argue *for *certitude on anything near as complex.
And again, he doesn’t need to do any science on anything. He’s not questioning the evidence. He’s accepting the same evidence that his opponents are using. He’s simply objecting to the level of certitude the evidence supports. So, he doesn’t need to do any science, as he doesn’t disagree with the evidence.
Uh, fallacies coming from you. Most people try to avoid them, knowing that they undermine their points. But, but all means, continue to cling to them like a rosary all you want.
What do you mean “champion [my] cause”? What is my cause, exactly? To have science be treated as science and have those adherents to a particular position not swoon over a position and treat it like a religionist turned evangelist? Well, if that’s the case, you certainly got me there. And, again, as far as I can tell, Ivar is not questioning the basic position, only the level of certitude that some claim is there.
And what are they “finding”? Well, let me share what I found:
There’s so much wrong with this I don’t know where to begin. Well, let’s start with how you misrepresented the claim that the article you cited found anything whatsoever—except for an opinion stating that Ivar is on the take. :rolleyes: And with zero evidence. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Additionally, the author, the learned LudwigVanQuixote, states that Ivar is of the position that his colleagues and the data are wrong. when in reality the only thing he’s objecting to is the the degree to which all available data supports a conclusion of “incontrovertible”.
Yep, he is also such a cherry picker that he refuses to see that a Gish Gallop** is also made of “erroneous” points** that is, false or misleading, nowhere our FX guy (you are not even an FX guy uh?) shows where I pointed or cited at erroneous or false information, clearly he is not capable of reading the information.
The emotional, self rightous rhetoric, the personal insults, the illogical and constant moving of whatever it is, it’s hard to tell, it’s like trying to make sense of a religion.
Any scientific point made is just swept aside, and torrent of yet another something, along with a flood of words that make no sense. It’s ridiculous.
Then there is no problem, he is as I said, not important then.
Obviously you did not roll up your eyes enough to notice that he came with the evidence.
Again, there is no science involved on this, only an opinion. Until he comes with evidence to support his say so that most of the Physicists are wrong on this, I go with the majority of the experts on the field and currently active that say that the evidence is there. Because, unless you can provide a cite against, logic tells me that the experts agree with the statement and they **do **know the science.
No evidence of any cite being erroneous, your accusations are certifiably ridiculous, I prefer to have evidence to then tell it like it is, you are not even an FX guy. 
Still no answer to the simplest question about AGW.
**I hereby fully and without reservations concede all possible biases, ignorance, and complete disregard for deceny or truth from any and all of my sources. They only want death, suffering, and money for their greedy corporate master of death.**Now, can you stop talking about it? We all know it know, that debate is over, let it rest. You win that part completely.
Will you answer the question now with your own answer?
In case you forgot the question is: What is in your opinion the total climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentration from pre-industrial-age levels?
I wouldn’t hold my breath for an answer.
Lol, I wouldn’t either. I don’t think GIGOBuster does much in the way of independent thinking about these issues. He mainly does searches of blogs like realclimate and then cuts, pastes, and paraphrases. At least that’s my impression.
I stopped engaging with him a long time ago after he repeatedly evaded a question I asked about whether (in his view) recent warming was outside the range of natural variation.
Probably he couldn’t find the Official Party Line on this question; he’s too stupid to answer the question coherently himself; and he’s too arrogant to just admit he doesn’t know. Also, he probably doesn’t want to admit that he just regurgitates arguments from realclimate without really understanding them.
There’s no shame in being stupid, but what’s so contempt-worthy in GIGOBuster is that he obviously thinks he’s really smart. Even his nickname discloses his arrogance.
So in the end you want me to reinvent the wheel?
Piffle, I just go for more than an educated guess, you look for the science.
And you want me to have a different opinion than that? On what basis? So keep living with disappointment, as I explained before my opinion is not important, what counts is the scientific publications and what they report to us.
And just be on the lookout for sources that make you look like a chump Aji.
Well, we would not ever held our breath for you even understanding the answers given, so keep on showing others what a hypocritical denier you are.
As shown already brazil84 does not want to deal with the fact that evidence for the water vapor feedback is here already, and Brickmore already showed how much outside the range of natural variation we are.
Science marches on, but **useless **deniers like him will continue to hold on to the same denials in blogs that are getting cobwebs.
I hear ya. But at least here I can tell somebody to fuck off. Which is the eventual end of most internet debates anyhow.
I don’t know, but I put his idiot ass on ignore, the first time I used that feature here. He just never shuts the fuck up, and constantly changes the tune, and refuses to answer simple questions.
I’ve seen this kind of crazy before, and it never ends well.
Given the passion with which you embrace fallacies, I’m pretty sure you have no idea what “logic” tells you. You two just don’t speak the same language.
Onward.
Oh lard, your quoting has bypassed my ignore feature. The stupid, it burns.
Oh Mods who joined the threads, I curse you.
The debate is going so well that you put him on ignore? That’s hilarious.