And everyone can see why you want to mislead others by just insisting that we should only concentrate on the last 10 years or so, because it does remove the pesky significant upward trend.
A trend that has also that ugly fact that solar activity and other forcings did go into low activity phases meaning that human forcings began to overtake the natural ones and are still going up. And that is why it is important for deniers to tell all to ignore the full picture.
The reality is that real scientists do not omit the unnatural warming from the 60’s to the current day.
When even the few scientists that are beloved by the deniers like Pat Michaels accepts this reality (Of the dumbness of saying that there has been no warming in the last 10 years or so) one then has to notice that guys like you are following the footsteps of creationists, when their points of view have virtually no support in the science community they even have to misinterpret even the few scientists that could be sympathetic to some of their points of view.
So the few remaining skeptical scientists concentrate mostly on seeding doubts regarding the intensity of the CO2 effect, not on the misrepresented “apparent” lack of warming in the last few years, as Pat Michaels put it: "you will kill us [the side that claims we should not worry much or at all] if you use the “it has not warmed since 1998 or 1995"” sorry point.
the do use science in an attempt (not doing a good job as seen in the latest congress hearings) to minimize the AGW effects.
Well, he actually did before, but is he capable of understanding that most of the points in that citation are not even followed by the few remaining skeptical scientists?
In any case my replies are not made just with the trolls in mind, but for all the other readers that actually do want to learn more.
And to show to all what sorry leadership Republicans currently have in the media and at the legislative level.
[Adding:]
That previous post had to end like this:
The few remaining skeptical scientists do use science in an attempt (not doing a good job as seen in the latest congress hearings) to minimize the AGW effects. That is their best bet now.
I’m sure you consider any poster here with less than 10k posts that doesn’t agree with you a troll. I’ll take it as a compliment, in that context - Thanks!
“squink,” huh? Cutely clever in a a childish sort of way, methinks.
Opinions without facts can be correct, partially correct, or wrong. And of course they are by definition subjective.
Take the following claim for example: “The Straight Dope is a great message board.”
A person could agree completely, agree somewhat, or disagree. And he would be correct, depending upon his individual opinion. Plus no probative cite could possibly exist to prove any of these assessments correct or incorrect. Demands for uncitable cites is one of the greatest areas of intellectual dishonesty on this board, if not the greatest. Pretending to have won the point when no cite is possible one way or the other most likely comes in second.
Nonsense yourself. Take your example. The point to focus on is the word “great”. One needs first to define what “great” means in this context, but I assume you intend it to be a subjective definition for the purposes of this discussion (else it would not be an opinion without facts but a factual - or counterfactual - statement).
So let’s say that for the purposes of this discussion one defines “great” to mean simply “something one really likes”. Now based on that definition “The Straight Dope is a great message board” is I agree just an opinion without facts. But in that case there is no way to say in any universal sense whether it is a correct or incorrect statement, all you can do is find out whether it is or is not true in any given person’s opinion. Except as an individual datapoint, it is not of any value.
To bring this back to the point at hand, **Nadir **posted a dumbshit statement (“We must of course at this point recognize that the climate change scientific community etc…”) that could quite possibly be a statement that if true would have factual backing. So he was challenged to provide a cite but of course he doesn’t have one, so he bailed using the standard lame parting shot of the pathetic blowhard and said his statement was “my opinion” as if that’s some sort of get out of jail card.
I am always bemused by this tactic. Either one’s opinion or statement is based on something objective and citeable or it is just the subjective mouthing of some guy (ie “your opinion”).
**Nadir **whether you fail to find cites or you say your statement is just “your opinion”, you lose, dude. It’s the same result either way.
Why must we come back to what Nadir said? I was addressing GIGObuster’s declaration that all opinions without fact are nonsense, which is clearly wrong.
For example, most people’s opinion is that racism is bad. But ‘bad’ is a subjective human construct; it does not exist in an objective, citable sense, nor does it exist outside the human species.
But be honest, wouldn’t you roll your eyes if someone here made a comment about how bad racism is and some bozo yelled, “Cite! Prove that racism is ‘bad’!”
That’s the kind of stuff that goes on around here all the time, except that instead of racism it gets applied almost exclusively to comments or opinions that are considered right-wing.
He said they were nothing more than ignorance actually. But don’t let accuracy get in the way: you never do. I don’t agree with him that all opinions without facts are nonsense. Opinions without fact are however worthless except as an indication of an individual’s subjective view.
No. I’m not going to sidetrack the debate by going into detail about racism in particular but I think racism is objectively bad in that it has measurable negative effects on quality of life for the whole of society.
Poor, poor baby. Is evwebody picking on paw widdle SA? Is da whole world ganging up on woo. Diddums. Why don’t woo go down into the garden and eat worms?
Or you could try having opinions that have substantial factual and rational basis. Other right wing people can, and they don’t seem to feel the need to be so whiney.
Hey look if the explanatory background is a bit much for you to understand, don’t feel embarrassed, just come out and admit it. You won’t be telling us something we hadn’t already figured out.
I’ll make it easy for you: if your statements have a rational and factual basis, have the guts to provide some cites and reasoning to support them. If your statements are nothing but your dumbass, totally subjective, factually bereft wibbling, then save it. We’re not interested.
Just for the record, I decline further quibbling with anyone (the proverbial “we” who are not interested?) who thinks the term “great” needs defined in any context. It’s a freakin’ adjective for cryin’ out loud - look it up. Take if for sarcasm accompanied with the rolleyes smilie. :rolleyes:
Resorting to that sort of obfuscation, you’ve already lost it.
Pardon. I was so stunned by that incredibly stupid faux pas of yours that I forgot to answer this point.
No, you can’t “prove” that racism has measurable negative effects on quality of life for the whole of society. You can only prove that it has what you regard as negative effects for the whole of society. There are people out there who feel that racism is both natural and beneficial and that to the degree the races mix, it’s bad for society - and perhaps for humanity in general. For every thing you point to as being a harmful result of inequality, they will point to something they believe is a harmful result of racial parity. You have your set of standards for what is a negative effect for society; they have theirs. There is no objective proof that your definition is correct, despite the fact that most of us agree that your belief is the correct one and theirs is nonsense.
The best you can do is point out that I mispoke? You win the argument now? Damn. Oh well, you win.
I meant to say “ignorance” obviously. And aren’t you lucky that in all your crowing about a typo, you managed to avoid me noticing that you didn’t give any reply of substance.
If I set criteria such as the occurrence of violence motivated by racism that would be objectively measurable. I don’t think that anyone (even racists) would think that was a good thing. If they set similar objective criteria about why racism was better they could measure that too.
This whole “it’s all subjective” shtick of yours is just a way of avoiding facing up to the sad fact that your opinions (unlike many more rational people) are usually based on nothing rational, measurable or objective.
Who’s upset? I’m just playing with a moron, it passes the time.
Mmkay, I did. Which of the 16 definitions is the single one you are capable of wrapping your brain around? With apologies to Ambrose Bierce:
But I guess that was a bit long and hurt your head, right? There, there, dumbass, you just go on living in your simple little world and don’t trouble yourself with reality. You can’t be expected to cope.
N.B.: “Groupthink” is just another word for what science calls “consensus” and it is the point of the whole enterprise of publishing a hypothesis in a peer-reviewed journal and getting it trashed and restating it in revised form, etc., until everybody provisionally accepts it.
I meant to say “ignorance” as well. After all, I was the one who introduced “nonsense” in rebuttal to GIGO’s use of ‘ignorance’ to define uncitable opinion. How come when I misspeak it’s proof of my chronic inaccuracy but when you misspeak (in the exact same way, no less) it’s merely a “typo”?
I don’t “believe” it. What I am is cognizant of it. If I wanted to take the time I could find thousands if not tens of thousands of times around here where someone yelled “Cite” about something wholly and obviously subjective and uncitable as fact, yea or nay, and in almost every occasion this dishonest practice is aimed at something deemed right-wing in nature or made by a right-wing poster. You’ll notice that not even Princhester deigned to deny this, even though he is clearly willing to grasp at straws in his attempts to prove me wrong.
In my opinon specious cite demands are the greatest form of intellectual dishonesty that takes place here.
