The Great CAGW Debate

[_Res Ipsa]

For the record: RI seems to be a pathological liar, as demonstrated by this comment. I tried. He cannot muster enough good will to even be honest about what I've said in this short thread. I did not say any of the things that he is right here claiming I said. All he can do is continuously construct straw men that he then takes great sadistic pleasure in triumphantly knocking down.

Ah, the last refuge of scoundrels: the disingenuous "liar" accusation. I've been wanting to dissect this one for a while, so I'm going to take a small detour to do so. Twice now in the global warming threads, WD has accused me of lying. Let's take them in order. First, from the other thread, in response to a comment by me:

You already know the link. I think you and Morley, et al, are lying about not finding the source I cut/pasted from.

Go over to the other thread. Look as hard as you can, and see if you can see where I said anything about not being able to find the source. You can look 'til the cows come home, but you won't find it. So, WD is accusing me of lying based on his claim that I said something that I never said. Not only that, he has no reason whatsoever to believe that I know the link, but accuses me anyway.

Second, from this thread:

For the record: RI seems to be a pathological liar, as demonstrated by this comment. I tried. He cannot muster enough good will to even be honest about what I've said in this short thread. I did not say any of the things that he is right here claiming I said.

Now, try as you will, you won't be able to find me saying "WD said 'X'" unless I actually quote him, using quote marks or the quote function. It's another 100% false accusation of lying. What WD is disputing is my interpretation of events. Now, unless I know my interpretation is false, I'm not lying. But WD doesn't actually tell us why my interpretation is wrong: he just falsely accuses me of lying about what he said. Again, last refuge of scoundrels.

Now, I'm perfectly happy to unpack my interpretation: WD and I were discussing global warming in the other thread. WD made a number of arguments and claims. Suddenly, WD insists on abandoning that discussion, having a hard reset, and starting a new "debate" from scratch. I don't want or need a hard reset, which amounts to a "do over" of the existing thread. WD has made so many false and misleading claims in the existing thread that I can spend hours using him as an example of why we should do exactly what Chap urges and just flat out ignore him and other climate science deniers. I'm not sure that most folks here appreciate how dishonest the deniers are or are aware of the specific techniques they use to lie and mislead about the data. So, I see some value in working through that exercise.

Why does WD want a do over? Why isn't he satisfied to stand by and defend his statements in the other thread? Well, this is what he said:

I appreciate some of what you're saying, other parts are silly and border on offensive. I think you'd be quite surprised if you knew who I actually was. I am not this knuckle dragging caricature you imagine me to be. I get caught up in the heat of the moment of these message board wars like everybody else, act the fool and post troll comments, but I'm really a pretty reasonable fellow.

So why does this have anything to do with the subject at hand (why we should abandon the old discussion and have a do over) if the comment about "get[ing] caught up in the heat of the moment" and "act[ing] the fool and "post[ing] troll comments" does not refer to comments he made in the prior thread? So, in response, I give him a chance to walk away from any arguments he made in the prior thread that were trolling or acting the fool. He declines the opportunity.

So, I'll ask again, where is the lie? I based my interpretation of events off of things WD actually said. If my interpretation is wrong, he's free to offer a counterargument. But he passes up that opportunity to make a 100% false accusation of lying.

As for the charge of "pathological liar," go ahead and make the case, Dog. My posting here is an open book. Only one of us has concealed his posting history. That's you.

I genuinely do not understand the thought processes that play into this sort of pathology. It's really weird. He really is like a Mormon apologist. Clutching his Nephite pearls. Some sort of deep seated insecurity drives his need to believe. But at the same time, he senses something is amiss. Lacking the character to confront this, he secures himself away in a safe space. That then leads to a neurotic need to always be right.

Now here's the weird part. All I'm doing is defending a branch of science and its findings. Dog thinks that's exactly the same as "clutching Nephite pearls." He's on the anti-science side, just like young earth creationists and flat earth's (all of whom argue in exactly the style that Dog does). So just who is clutching pearls. And this weird "safe space" argument he makes. Did Shades die and leave me control over the board? Do I have the power to block Dog's account? Can I stop him from speaking? I mean, is this opposite day and no one told me?

In that context of the Mormon analogy, what he's doing here is two things.

1) He wants to control the environment.

LOL. Please recall, we were having a perfectly fine discussion about global warming in the other thread when, without even asking me about it in advance, he started this thread, demanding I "debate" him in a do over. Who, exactly, wants to control the terms?

He wants to debate things like Word Print Analysis and Hebraisms. Faith promoting pseudo intellectual rubbish that is daunting and seemingly advanced to the layperson, which they find persuasive and bias confirming, and is at the same time tedious and laborious for "deniers" to respond to. Because RI and the other apologists know I'm not an expert on Hebrew poetry. Who the ____ is? Even the "experts" aren't experts. That's not a rigorous, highly competitive field. And even if I am, it's such a mind numbing discussion, goes over most people's heads, and can be debated endlessly due to its subjective nature and my inability to prove a negative. By even engaging the discussion I actually legitimize this nonsense. It then becomes a contest of personalities. Hey look, a Yale Ph.D. Egyptologist just went toe to toe with the denier. The whole thing is reduced to soundbites and the emotion accompanying rhetorical jabs.

Keep in mind that only one of us, yours truly, is actually defending science. Scientists have been piecing together exactly how the climate works and, more specifically, the role of CO2 for over 100 years. And they've done that by gathering data over an incredibly broad field of evidence, from ice cores in Vladivostok to Glaciers in the Himalayas, to geographical changes in climactic zones, to the behavior of gases in the atmosphere. WD is claiming that this scientific enterprise is exactly like "Word Print Analysis" He has that exactly backwards. It is he who simply ignores the entire body of evidence and runs around asking questions like: "Explain how early middle english" got into the Book of Mormon. His attack on climate science is identical in form to the attacks of Young Earth Creationists on Evolution, the attacks of Moon Landing Hoaxers on NASA, and the attacks of flat earthers on, well, all sane people. Instead of reasoning from the totality of the evidence, they turn their backs on 99% of the evidence and repeatedly ask: Oh yeah, explain X.

2) Personal attacks. Ad hominem. Debate the person, not the subject. It's all bout me. He will do anything but discuss the subject. Whenever he can't debate the subject, he starts to debate me. Which also includes using epithets like "denier." Like the apologist's use of terms such as "critic" or "anti" or "doubter." These are subtle attempts to dehumanize or delegitimize his opposition. And which shows he is not taking the discussion seriously and never was.

Yeah, and like labeling the FARMS crew Mopologist. Every side in a debate labels their opponents. I mean, WD takes great offense at me calling him a global warming denier, yet has no hesitation trying to compare me to a mopologist.

Keep this in mind: we were already discussing global warming in the other thread. WD made a number of claims and arguments. Does he want to talk about them? No! He's been doing everything he can to change the subject. So, detour over. It's back to the subject of the tactics of global warming deniers, using Water Dog's posts as examples.

[_Water Dog]

Ah, the last refuge of scoundrels: the disingenuous "liar" accusation.

...

Go over to the other thread. Look as hard as you can, and see if you can see where I said anything about not being able to find the source. You can look 'til the cows come home, but you won't find it. So, WD is accusing me of lying based on his claim that I said something that I never said. Not only that, he has no reason whatsoever to believe that I know the link, but accuses me anyway.

Well, then that makes you a scoundrel.

Here we go, again. Round and round.



Why did the whole "what is the link" thing happen? Oh, that's right, because you disingenuously accused me of lying first.

Now pay attention, class. Water Dog is the guy who started a whole thread on science and honesty. Click his link and read the abstract. Make sure you read the last sentence, which WD deleted. That’s right. The Dog carefully copied all but the last sentence, because he doesn’t want you to see the actual conclusion.

So, WD, what’s your excuse this time? Which demonrat forced you to delete the last sentence?

It then turns into pages and pages of you and your friends sucking each other off. You falsely accused me of lying - several times. And still are. We are literally still talking about this. Because you're a scoundrel. I didn't doctor any quote. I didn't misrepresent any article. I wasn't even making the argument you claim I was making. Quite literally nothing you're saying is true and I find myself wondering who the hell you're even talking to right now?

No matter how many times I attempt to clarify and restate the same simple point I was attempting to articulate before you accused me of lying, doesn't matter, you just keep going on and on and on with this. I'm starting to think that you are literally a lunatic, an unstable person. I'm thinking I should quit while I'm ahead, before you get really worked up and try to track me down and put a bomb in my car or something. You are off in the head, friend. You need help. I'm serious. Time to stop. I'm done with this conversation. It's only going to get nastier and nastier. I tried to reset. I'm sorry we couldn't get there, and for whatever part I played in this saga. Time is the universal healer, and it's time to walk away from this subject.

Peace, out!

[_Res Ipsa]

So, where to start. So much denier BS. Hmm.

Let's try here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=50134&start=168#p1149942

In this post, WD shows a graph of the past 450 million years comparing global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 and asks:

Where is the historical correlation between CO2 and temperature?

Well, actually, he knows where it is. Or he should. He cut and pasted from a post at Watt's Up With That that shows the relationship. It's surprising that he missed it.

Here's the trick. Take a look at the graph he posted and try to find the period of time when human civilization existed. I mean, when we're talking about the effects of global warming, we're really talking about how it will effect us. So try and look at that section of Dog's graph.

You can't. It's so scrunched together at the right hand edge that you can't compare the temperature with the CO2. But, the graph that WD didn't bother to post from the blog he cut and pasted from zooms in on the relevant portion of history:



Keep in mind that the present is on the left end of the graph.

The correlation between CO2 and temperature is pretty damn impressive, when you look at the past 400,000 years instead of 450 million years. Why did WD choose a graph that is largely irrelevant to human history in favor instead of a graph that looks more closely at the period of time we care about?

Because that's what deniers do. They make disingenous arguments because they don't care about what's actually happening. They fear the ramifications of global warming, but attack the science rather than deal directly with the ramifications.

Reconciling the two graphs is simple. There are many "drivers" of climate change. CO2 is one of them. Climate science has never claimed that CO2 is the sole driver of climate change or that it is the most significant driver of climate change over all time scales. Dog, whose argument is premised on the fallacious reasoning that CO2 cannot be a significant driver of climate change unless it has been the most significant driver of climate change over the last 450 million years, is simply attacking a straw man. With deniers, you'll see that over and over and over.

So, the bottom line is that, for the period of time we care about and for a long, long time before that, there has been a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. To deny that is an extreme position, even among the deniers.

[_Res Ipsa]

Here's another of Dog's "arguments" against climate change:



Now, in the other thread, I responded to this:

Water Dog, let’s start with your 17 year cooling trend. Show me the data and the computation of the trend.

Now, the thread went on for five more pages. Dog's response? Crickets.

Open invitation: Show the data and the computation for a 17-year cooling trend.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Why is so much time being wasted by talking with or about Water Dog?

He has no basis of evidence or skills that make his opinion on climate change worth a moment's consideration. What he does have is boundless confidence in whatever ideas he has picked up from right-wing websites, and a total absence of doubt or second thoughts of any kind.

I know, right? It's like he dropped an equation into the conversation that no one questioned, the opening post couldn't explain, and no one cared if the equation could be used, at all, to further the point being made on the thread.

bUt 0nl4 CON-s3rvetuv$ pl#y ____ Fuc3 g@m3s!!

- Doc

It is a stupid equation that I found on google, but it is straightforward and easy to understand.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Reconciling the two graphs is simple. There are many "drivers" of climate change. CO2 is one of them. Climate science has never claimed that CO2 is the sole driver of climate change or that it is the most significant driver of climate change over all time scales. Dog, whose argument is premised on the fallacious reasoning that CO2 cannot be a significant driver of climate change unless it has been the most significant driver of climate change over the last 450 million years, is simply attacking a straw man. With deniers, you'll see that over and over and over.

So, the bottom line is that, for the period of time we care about and for a long, long time before that, there has been a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. To deny that is an extreme position, even among the deniers.

Well said! You won the great CAGW Debate!

[_Chap]

Why is so much time being wasted by talking with or about Water Dog?

He has no basis of evidence or skills that make his opinion on climate change worth a moment's consideration. What he does have is boundless confidence in whatever ideas he has picked up from right-wing websites, and a total absence of doubt or second thoughts of any kind.

I know, right? It's like he dropped an equation into the conversation that no one questioned, the opening post couldn't explain, and no one cared if the equation could be used, at all, to further the point being made on the thread.

You were doing pretty good job of questioning DT on that. I wasn't aware you needed help.

Oh. I now realise that DrC's post was directed at DT. I don't really see the relevance of DrC's point to Water Dog's status as the person who has demanded that we should participate in a debate, in this thread, on whether or not human activity has caused a generalised rise in global mean temperatures.

But on this:

he dropped an equation into the conversation that no one questioned

Well, I didn't question that equation, I suppose (why should I?), but I thought I did a fairly adequate job of briefly explaining its significance as a foundation stone of climate science, and of explaining its meaning in non-algebraic terms:

viewtopic.php?p=1149707#p1149707

Basically, we are talking about the relationship stated by the Swedish scientist Arrhenius (d. 1927) as a result of a simple theoretical model of the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It can be stated without needing a lot of math.

Suppose we start from a baseline, such as the state of things in 1750, and we want to know how much extra energy per second (compared with 1750) will end up heating the earth if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere goes up from what it was in 1750.

Suppose we multiply the original concentration of carbon dioxide by two, so it doubles. Then by two again, so it quadruples. Then by two again, so it is 8 times bigger, then by two again to make it 16 times bigger.

You might think that the extra heating effect would also double each time too. But it doesn't. If the first doubling of carbon dioxide concentration adds a certain amount to the heating effect, then the second doubling of carbon dioxide concentration just adds the same amount each time, and so on for each doubling.

That's basically all that equation is telling us. The mathematical formula is just a neater and more general way of stating it.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Chap, of course, misses the point entirely, and demonstrates once again situational ignorance that is only rivaled by Craig Paxton who likes to post a sister threads to topics submitted just hours beforehand. I mean, I get it. I do. He's butthurt about so many things, but fails spectacularly to ever, really, make a point.

- Doc

[_Chap]

Chap, of course, misses the point entirely, and demonstrates once again situational ignorance that is only rivaled by Craig Paxton who likes to post a sister threads to topics submitted just hours beforehand. I mean, I get it. I do. He's butthurt about so many things, but fails spectacularly to ever, really, make a point.

- Doc

Uh-huh. I'd love to play, Doc, but the guys I smoke cigars with say I'm spending too much time online. Try someone else?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Chap, of course, misses the point entirely, and demonstrates once again situational ignorance that is only rivaled by Craig Paxton who likes to post a sister threads to topics submitted just hours beforehand. I mean, I get it. I do. He's butthurt about so many things, but fails spectacularly to ever, really, make a point.

- Doc

Uh-huh. I'd love to play, Doc, but the guys I smoke cigars with say I'm spending too much time online. Try someone else?

Man, you're such an insecure Negative Nancy. Try firing up a stogie; it might put some hair on your balls for the first time in your life.

That said, you're the one that flounced into the thread and made a dumb comment about DT's equation simultaneously misunderstanding the narrative while proving the point that 'science' is thrown around regarding this topic, but is totally incomprehensible to those who use it to prove their position. They see data and feel assured it must make sense, but are completely incapable of understanding it on a fundamental level.

- Doc