This should give FirstAscent a stroke...

[FirstAscent]

lol... Pretty much exactly what I predicted. FirstAscent immediately went into "dodge and deflect" mode, and refuses to address the paper in the article, ignoring any data which does not support his world view. Three fallacious arguments - including a particularly egregious tu quoque - later, he has conceded defeat.

Thanks for the show, FirstAscent, it was quite amusing.

You have made a thread, specifically about my reaction to some paper. The funniest part about it is your complete lack of demonstrable knowledge about the topic at hand. To boot, you can't address the three requests I've made, despite the fact that you have demand things of me in the past.

Do you have any knowledge about this subject that isn't spoon fed to you from your favorite libertarian sites?

First off, the thread was about the paper. You reacted in a predictable manner to the paper, which is what the title and the last line in the OP were about.

Secondly, You need to learn the difference between "can't" and "won't". I won't address the requests you've made, because they're unrelated to the paper, and at least one of them is based on a fallacy.

If you want to make this thread about your reaction to the paper, you can, but then I'll just be laughing at you even harder than I already am. If you wish to address the paper, you can. Or we can watch you flail some more.

Your opinions have been duly noted, Mister "I think I actually know something about climate science because I get my info from libertarian bloggers". And you have my permission to laugh all night long if it makes you happy.

I personally don't see any value in even having a discussion with someone such as you who is simultaneously extremely opinionated about a subject and extremely ignorant of said subject at the same time.

[myrkul]

lol... Pretty much exactly what I predicted. FirstAscent immediately went into "dodge and deflect" mode, and refuses to address the paper in the article, ignoring any data which does not support his world view. Three fallacious arguments - including a particularly egregious tu quoque - later, he has conceded defeat.

Thanks for the show, FirstAscent, it was quite amusing.

You have made a thread, specifically about my reaction to some paper. The funniest part about it is your complete lack of demonstrable knowledge about the topic at hand. To boot, you can't address the three requests I've made, despite the fact that you have demand things of me in the past.

Do you have any knowledge about this subject that isn't spoon fed to you from your favorite libertarian sites?

First off, the thread was about the paper. You reacted in a predictable manner to the paper, which is what the title and the last line in the OP were about.

Secondly, You need to learn the difference between "can't" and "won't". I won't address the requests you've made, because they're unrelated to the paper, and at least one of them is based on a fallacy.

If you want to make this thread about your reaction to the paper, you can, but then I'll just be laughing at you even harder than I already am. If you wish to address the paper, you can. Or we can watch you flail some more.

Your opinions have been duly noted, Mister "I think I actually know something about climate science because I get my info from libertarian bloggers". And you have my permission to laugh all night long if it makes you happy.

I personally don't see any value in even having a discussion with someone such as you who is simultaneously extremely opinionated about a subject and extremely ignorant of said subject at the same time.

And yet, you keep doing it... What does that say about how much you value your time?

[MoonShadow]

Do you have any knowledge about this subject that isn't spoon fed to you from your favorite libertarian sites?

Do you have any knowledge that is not spoon fed to you from your most trusted sources?  Everyone has a bias, there is simply too much information for us to individually sort through the raw data to come to our own conclusions, so we all locate sources that we believe that we can trust; and we favor information that is filtered by those same sources.  It's also entirely logical that we gravitate towards sources that seem to confirm our early presumptions.  You do it, I do it, and Myrkul does it.  Thus, it's entirely consistent that Myrkul would rank the information and conclusions of an esteemed peer (Stefan Molyneux) as well as another ideological peer with another concentration (Watts) above the common noise.  It still does not address the conclusions of the paper, which can be completely off base even using correct data.  Personally, I'm inclined to believe that AGW is true, but not to the degree that it deserves a concerted & global response.  

While you are not obligated to play his game, at least be honest about why you don't desire to play.  Trying to deflect fault upon libertarians because you believe us to be incorrect simply appears childish; which, I believe, was really Myrkul's goal in the start. I doubt he ever had any real belief that you would bother to read the article at all.

EDIT:  BTW, Myrkul.  It appears obvious to me that you posted this primarily to elicit an emotional response from FirstAscent, simply because he holds a different worldview than yourself.  By my own definition, that's 'trolling'.

[FirstAscent]

lol... Pretty much exactly what I predicted. FirstAscent immediately went into "dodge and deflect" mode, and refuses to address the paper in the article, ignoring any data which does not support his world view. Three fallacious arguments - including a particularly egregious tu quoque - later, he has conceded defeat.

Thanks for the show, FirstAscent, it was quite amusing.

You have made a thread, specifically about my reaction to some paper. The funniest part about it is your complete lack of demonstrable knowledge about the topic at hand. To boot, you can't address the three requests I've made, despite the fact that you have demand things of me in the past.

Do you have any knowledge about this subject that isn't spoon fed to you from your favorite libertarian sites?

First off, the thread was about the paper. You reacted in a predictable manner to the paper, which is what the title and the last line in the OP were about.

Secondly, You need to learn the difference between "can't" and "won't". I won't address the requests you've made, because they're unrelated to the paper, and at least one of them is based on a fallacy.

If you want to make this thread about your reaction to the paper, you can, but then I'll just be laughing at you even harder than I already am. If you wish to address the paper, you can. Or we can watch you flail some more.

Your opinions have been duly noted, Mister "I think I actually know something about climate science because I get my info from libertarian bloggers". And you have my permission to laugh all night long if it makes you happy.

I personally don't see any value in even having a discussion with someone such as you who is simultaneously extremely opinionated about a subject and extremely ignorant of said subject at the same time.

And yet, you keep doing it... What does that say about how much you value your time?

I keep doing it? In fact, I am not doing it. I am very clearly not having a discussion with you about climate science, due to your extreme opinions and lack of knowledge.  What I am doing is having a discussion about the pointlessness of having said conversation with you. I did not state I was short of time (a failed assumption on your part).

[MoonShadow]

I keep doing it? In fact, I am not doing it. I am very clearly not having a discussion with you about climate science, due to your extreme opinions and lack of knowledge.  What I am doing is having a discussion about the pointlessness of having said conversation with you. I did not state I was short of time (a failed assumption on your part).

<sigh>  I will not attempt to intervene, if you continue to play right into his hands.

[myrkul]

lol... Pretty much exactly what I predicted. FirstAscent immediately went into "dodge and deflect" mode, and refuses to address the paper in the article, ignoring any data which does not support his world view. Three fallacious arguments - including a particularly egregious tu quoque - later, he has conceded defeat.

Thanks for the show, FirstAscent, it was quite amusing.

You have made a thread, specifically about my reaction to some paper. The funniest part about it is your complete lack of demonstrable knowledge about the topic at hand. To boot, you can't address the three requests I've made, despite the fact that you have demand things of me in the past.

Do you have any knowledge about this subject that isn't spoon fed to you from your favorite libertarian sites?

First off, the thread was about the paper. You reacted in a predictable manner to the paper, which is what the title and the last line in the OP were about.

Secondly, You need to learn the difference between "can't" and "won't". I won't address the requests you've made, because they're unrelated to the paper, and at least one of them is based on a fallacy.

If you want to make this thread about your reaction to the paper, you can, but then I'll just be laughing at you even harder than I already am. If you wish to address the paper, you can. Or we can watch you flail some more.

Your opinions have been duly noted, Mister "I think I actually know something about climate science because I get my info from libertarian bloggers". And you have my permission to laugh all night long if it makes you happy.

I personally don't see any value in even having a discussion with someone such as you who is simultaneously extremely opinionated about a subject and extremely ignorant of said subject at the same time.

And yet, you keep doing it... What does that say about how much you value your time?

I keep doing it? In fact, I am not doing it. I am very clearly not having a discussion with you about climate science, due to your extreme opinions and lack of knowledge.  What I am doing is having a discussion about the pointlessness of having said conversation with you. I did not state I was short of time (a failed assumption on your part).

You "don't see any value" in "having a discussion with someone such as me." Yet you are having a discussion with someone such as myself... in fact, me. You never specified having a discussion about climate science, you simply said discussion. So if there is no value in the discussion, and you keep expending time on the discussion (and time is the most scarce resource, we all have a limited amount of it, and we don't even know how much), then you must value your time very little.

I do see value in this conversation... entertainment. that's why I keep doing this, because it amuses me. I suppose that means I'm trolling you. Really, though, you're trolling yourself, because I would more than gladly discuss the paper with you, but you refuse, and consistently deflect the conversation into well... this. So, if you are content to self-troll, I will continue to derive enjoyment from it.

[FirstAscent]

Do you have any knowledge about this subject that isn't spoon fed to you from your favorite libertarian sites?

Do you have any knowledge that is not spoon fed to you from your most trusted sources?

If it comes down to that, I feel I could I could discredit the sources frequently cited here by the libertarians far better than others could discredit the sources I might cite. Do we need to go through this all again? Frederick Seitz, Richard Lindzen, The Oregon Petition, The George C. Marshall Institute, The Heartland Institute, Exxon/Mobil funding, Environment and Climate News, etc.

Then follows the ugly deflections from the libertarian crowd. Sun cycles. Iceberg water displacement. Classification of CO2, The Little Ice Age...

Then follows the ignorance of: Earth's orbital patterns, Milankovich cycles, axis wobble, glacier calving, water volumes based on heat...

Then follows the failed acknowledgement of the potential dangers of a wait and see attitude.

Then follows the lies and propaganda to create the sense that scientists aren't in general agreement, where such lies are funded by Exxon/Mobil.

The information is out there. Do you think the libertarian think tanks are genuinely interested in sharing such information?

You can have a fundamental understanding of climate science if you want. Nothing is stopping you. Why would one only choose to source their data from libertarian think tanks?

[MoonShadow]

Why would one only choose to source their data from libertarian think tanks?

Only?

[FirstAscent]

I keep doing it? In fact, I am not doing it. I am very clearly not having a discussion with you about climate science, due to your extreme opinions and lack of knowledge.  What I am doing is having a discussion about the pointlessness of having said conversation with you. I did not state I was short of time (a failed assumption on your part).

<sigh>  I will not attempt to intervene, if you continue to play right into his hands.

This changes nothing with regard to the truth of myrkul's strong opinions on the subject combined with his general lack of knowledge on the subject. It doesn't matter what you feel is at stake here. But there is a truth here - myrkul's opinion on the matter doesn't match his knowledge on the subject. Using one's political ideology to drive how you read science will always be a failure. Unfortunately, for myrkul, that is his method.

Have you considered that I don't use a political ideology to look for sources? Rather, my political ideology is derived from my general study.

[myrkul]

Have you considered that I don't use a political ideology to look for sources? Rather, my political ideology is derived from my general study.

Have you considered that my political ideology has nothing to do with my views on the environment? (I do note that state ownership of production and resources correlates strongly to pollution and mismanagement, but that's beside the point.)

[FirstAscent]

Since I've noted a general deficiency in your knowledge about ice ages, (making you susceptible to theories convenient for libertarians), I recommend the following two books. I read these both before I ever had any knowledge of this forum or any real desire or political position on climate change. Neither book is written from the perspective of discussing AGW or GW. I can recommend other reading for you as well. If and when you've read more, feel free to pick up the discussion again.

www.amazon.com/After-Ice-Age-Glaciated-America/dp/0226668126/

www.amazon.com/Cro-Magnon-Birth-First-Modern-Humans/dp/1608194051/

[MoonShadow]

Have you considered that I don't use a political ideology to look for sources? Rather, my political ideology is derived from my general study.

In the interests of impartiality, I have considered that, because I always consider the possibility that intelligent people I encounter might be the first unbiased and educated person that I meet.  Unfortunately, you didn't pass that test, either.  The only unbiased people that I have ever meet are those who are too ignorant or too stupid to form a coherent opinion about a topic.  Anyone who has made any attempt to self-educate invariablely chooses a side long before they are fully informed; which, in turn, colors their further assimilation of information.  Also, the side that they choose is, in my own experience, pre-determined by their pre-existing ideologies.

I am no exception.  Sorry, but neither are you.  I'm an INTP, and part of that personality type is that I'm more able, and inclined, to re-examine my own perspectives and conclusions on any given topic than any other personality type in the Myers-Briggs metric spectrum.  Therefore, no one is less biased, by nature, than one such as myself.  That said, I've found that, even as often I as do it; it has proven to be a very rare event that I would change my own mind concerning any topic.  I generally believe that most people can't alter their perspectives past a certain age, somewhere around 35 or so; even when presented with quite a bit of evidence.  The cognative dissonance might be significant, even stressful, but old people cannot change.  They can only pretend to change.

This is why these kinds of theological debates are not really conducted in public in order to convince the other party that they are incorrect, but to present the arguments to the yet unbiased reader in a manner that does not trigger the natural bullsh*t filters that raise red flags whenever we are directly preached to.  And this, FirstAscent, is why libertarianism is so very common among the young & internet savvy; for this has been utilized as a deliberate tactic by libertarians for over a decade now.  It's already too late to stop it, so whether you choose to participate personally in the destruction of your own worldview or not is already irrelevant.  Everyday libertarian 'trolls' like us have been presenting these arguments across all of the Internet for so long, and for so often, that young people (who can still be convinced) have been gravitating to the libertarian worldview year by year; simply because they are the very people that can look at these arguments objectively and decide which set they find to be more credible, more likely, and therefore more trustworthy.

And there it is, I've just exposed the entire goal of both of the Ron Paul campaigns (and pretty much his entire congressional career) as well as the reason for all of these libertarian leaning websites and think tanks dedicated to all of these various topics, such as Watts Up With That and Reason.com.  They exist to give the seeker some place to go to branch out and learn more, once they have already decided that we are correct, and further arm them to do what then comes naturally, and spread the memes in the same manner that they received them.

Your ideology has already lost, and I believe that I will live to see the rise and dominion of libertarianism in the public sphere within my own lifetime.

[FirstAscent]

Have you considered that I don't use a political ideology to look for sources? Rather, my political ideology is derived from my general study.

In the interests of impartiality, I have considered that, because I always consider the possibility that intelligent people I encounter might be the first unbiased and educated person that I meet.  Unfortunately, you didn't pass that test, either.  The only unbiased people that I have ever meet are those who are too ignorant or too stupid to form a coherent opinion about a topic.  Anyone who has made any attempt to self-educate invariablely chooses a side long before they are fully informed; which, in turn, colors their further assimilation of information.  Also, the side that they choose is, in my own experience, pre-determined by their pre-existing ideologies.

I am no exception.  Sorry, but neither are you.  I'm an INTP, and part of that personality type is that I'm more able, and inclined, to re-examine my own perspectives and conclusions on any given topic than any other personality type in the Myers-Briggs metric spectrum.  Therefore, no one is less biased, by nature, than one such as myself.  That said, I've found that, even as often I as do it; it has proven to be a very rare event that I would change my own mind concerning any topic.  I generally believe that most people can't alter their perspectives past a certain age, somewhere around 35 or so; even when presented with quite a bit of evidence.  The cognative dissonance might be significant, even stressful, but old people cannot change.  They can only pretend to change.

This is why these kinds of theological debates are not really conducted in public in order to convince the other party that they are incorrect, but to present the arguments to the yet unbiased reader in a manner that does not trigger the natural bullsh*t filters that raise red flags whenever we are directly preached to.  And this, FirstAscent, is why libertarianism is so very common among the young & internet savvy; for this has been utilized as a deliberate tactic by libertarians for over a decade now.  It's already too late to stop it, so whether you choose to participate personally in the destruction of your own worldview or not is already irrelevant.  Everyday libertarian 'trolls' like us have been presenting these arguments across all of the Internet for so long, and for so often, that young people (who can still be convinced) have been gravitating to the libertarian worldview year by year; simply because they are the very people that can look at these arguments objectively and decide which set they find to be more credible, more likely, and therefore more trustworthy.

And there it is, I've just exposed the entire goal of both of the Ron Paul campaigns (and pretty much his entire congressional career) as well as the reason for all of these libertarian leaning websites and think tanks dedicated to all of these various topics, such as Watts Up With That and Reason.com.  They exist to give the seeker some place to go to branch out and learn more, once they have already decided that we are correct, and further arm them to do what then comes naturally, and spread the memes in the same manner that they received them.

Your ideology has already lost, and I believe that I will live to see the rise and dominion of libertarianism in the public sphere within my own lifetime.

MoonShadow,

When you too want to spend some time reading up on the subject of climate science, ice ages, species migration, and so on, instead of Ron Paul's playbook and the drivel spewed from libertarian think tanks, I've got some reading recommendations for you.

Until then, you're entitled to your opinion on the osmosis of knowledge.

[MoonShadow]

Have you considered that I don't use a political ideology to look for sources? Rather, my political ideology is derived from my general study.

In the interests of impartiality, I have considered that, because I always consider the possibility that intelligent people I encounter might be the first unbiased and educated person that I meet.  Unfortunately, you didn't pass that test, either.  The only unbiased people that I have ever meet are those who are too ignorant or too stupid to form a coherent opinion about a topic.  Anyone who has made any attempt to self-educate invariablely chooses a side long before they are fully informed; which, in turn, colors their further assimilation of information.  Also, the side that they choose is, in my own experience, pre-determined by their pre-existing ideologies.

I am no exception.  Sorry, but neither are you.  I'm an INTP, and part of that personality type is that I'm more able, and inclined, to re-examine my own perspectives and conclusions on any given topic than any other personality type in the Myers-Briggs metric spectrum.  Therefore, no one is less biased, by nature, than one such as myself.  That said, I've found that, even as often I as do it; it has proven to be a very rare event that I would change my own mind concerning any topic.  I generally believe that most people can't alter their perspectives past a certain age, somewhere around 35 or so; even when presented with quite a bit of evidence.  The cognative dissonance might be significant, even stressful, but old people cannot change.  They can only pretend to change.

This is why these kinds of theological debates are not really conducted in public in order to convince the other party that they are incorrect, but to present the arguments to the yet unbiased reader in a manner that does not trigger the natural bullsh*t filters that raise red flags whenever we are directly preached to.  And this, FirstAscent, is why libertarianism is so very common among the young & internet savvy; for this has been utilized as a deliberate tactic by libertarians for over a decade now.  It's already too late to stop it, so whether you choose to participate personally in the destruction of your own worldview or not is already irrelevant.  Everyday libertarian 'trolls' like us have been presenting these arguments across all of the Internet for so long, and for so often, that young people (who can still be convinced) have been gravitating to the libertarian worldview year by year; simply because they are the very people that can look at these arguments objectively and decide which set they find to be more credible, more likely, and therefore more trustworthy.

And there it is, I've just exposed the entire goal of both of the Ron Paul campaigns (and pretty much his entire congressional career) as well as the reason for all of these libertarian leaning websites and think tanks dedicated to all of these various topics, such as Watts Up With That and Reason.com.  They exist to give the seeker some place to go to branch out and learn more, once they have already decided that we are correct, and further arm them to do what then comes naturally, and spread the memes in the same manner that they received them.

Your ideology has already lost, and I believe that I will live to see the rise and dominion of libertarianism in the public sphere within my own lifetime.

MoonShadow,

When you too want to spend some time reading up on the subject of climate science, ice ages, species migration, and so on, instead of Ron Paul's playbook and the drivel spewed from libertarian think tanks, I've got some reading recommendations for you.

Until then, you're entitled to your opinion on the osmosis of knowledge.

You assume that I am uninformed on these topics, despite my own words.  You are unchangable, as am I.  As I have said, I actually believe that AGW is more likely true than not, but it still doesn't change reality.  The predictive models have repeatedly proven flawed.  There has been zero aggregate warming in a decade or so, and more recently much data to imply that co2 isn't a significant greenhouse gas anyway, or at least there are some mitigating factors we have yet to include into the predictive models.  Furthermore, even if the models are correct in the long term, most of the warming is expected to occur towards the poles, due to how the greenhouse effect actually works.  As far as land mass and growing seasons go, that's a net positive.  And don't hand me any crap about possible changes in the water cycle, that bs has been going on for millinia.  The Salt Flats were an inland sea only about 500 years ago, with the surrounding areas, now desert, as lush and wet as the American Midwest is today.  (Which is to say, not very, but not a desert either)  We have the technology to turn the Salt Flats back into an inland sea again, with the resulting benefits of dramaticly improving the surrounding states' annual rainfall, but we won't do it.  We have the technology to 'seed' the Pacific Ocean with iron fillings, inducing alge blooms at will to sequester co2 at the bottom of the ocean for hundreds of years at least, but we won't do it.  We have the ability to construct safe fission plants capable of nearly replacing oil as an energy source, but we won't do it.  It's not about mitigating climate change, it's about political ideology.

[FirstAscent]

There has been zero aggregate warming in a decade or so...

I suggest you stop relying on the libertarian sites giving you the news. Please do read up on current news - not selectively filtered news that latches on to a dated erroneous report. MoonShadow, I'm sorry to say - you're uninformed.

As I said earlier, pay attention to credible reporting (and there's a lot of it). Until then, this conversation is over. You will come back and respond, I know. But there comes a point when one just has to wash his hands of a discussion when the opposite party is pulling material known to have been discredited.

[myrkul]

There has been zero aggregate warming in a decade or so...

MoonShadow, I'm sorry to say - you're uninformed.

tsk... Do I have to teach you English, too? If the above statement is incorrect, he is not uninformed, but misinformed.

[FirstAscent]

There has been zero aggregate warming in a decade or so...

MoonShadow, I'm sorry to say - you're uninformed.

tsk... Do I have to teach you English, too? If the above statement is incorrect, he is not uninformed, but misinformed.

He's misinformed as well, in this instance. But I really did mean uninformed - meaning he's not really informed about climate change science.

[myrkul]

FWIW, I found this graph:


They fit a sine curve to the data, which is interesting, but will need more time to see if it bears out.
A quote from the article I found it in:

    Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.13 C per decade

    April temperatures (preliminary)

    Global composite temp.: +0.30 C (about 0.54 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for April.

    Northern Hemisphere: +0.41 C (about 0.74 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for April.

    Southern Hemisphere: +0.18 C (about 0.32 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for April.

    Tropics: -0.12 C (about 0.22 degrees Fahrenheit) below 30-year average for April.

[FirstAscent]

Why are we looking at a volcano?

[myrkul]

Why are we looking at a volcano?

Perhaps you're seeing a different image than I am? There's no volcano in that picture, it's a graph of temperatures.