| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Koch Brothers pay to show global warming is real | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 31 2011, 08:01 PM (4,899 Views) | |
| Chris | Nov 12 2011, 11:53 PM Post #91 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"No, Jim, I've beat up on Chris enough." And "I'm just hoping that if I embarrass him [Jim] often enough". Thanks, Brewster, for admitting this, that your intent is mere intellectual bullying. Might work for others, obviously isn't working here. Pure intellectual dishonesty is all I read in your posts all to avoid the elephant in the room. Try again, Brewster, how does your hypothesis that man causes CO2 causes warming account for over a decade on rising CO2 but no corresponding rising in temperatures. Jim, see post #64 for the history of global warming fraud. Muller and the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) group were formed to overcome that scandal. Edited by Chris, Nov 12 2011, 11:56 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jim Miller | Nov 13 2011, 12:05 AM Post #92 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thanks, Chris but we all have read tat over and over again. I don't think poor Brew is capable of understanding it. He sure does seem to enjoy being embarassed though. |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Nov 13 2011, 12:07 AM Post #93 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, I'm won't speak about the private Brewster, just his public posts. |
![]() |
|
| Thumper | Nov 13 2011, 12:22 AM Post #94 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Beat up on folks here. Is that the goal for Miller and Chris here? |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Nov 13 2011, 12:27 AM Post #95 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Where have I done that, Thumper? I have many times pointed out that that seems to be a problem around here. I do my best to try to present arguments based on facts and logic--example your questions on crony capitalism, which I'll add to shortly--if I get personal, let me know, I'd prefer to avoid it. |
![]() |
|
| Thumper | Nov 13 2011, 12:33 AM Post #96 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It is personal with Jim and you appear to support it. |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Nov 13 2011, 12:39 AM Post #97 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
In what way? I simply pointed out intellectual bullying in the text of a couple posts. And I provided support for Jim's claim of global warming fraud. Following some of the Paterno threads you seem to like to engage in what you criticize. Like I say, you see me attacking people personally, point it out, and I'll apologize for it. It contributes nothing of interest, in fact interferes with what might otherwise be interesting discussion, like this side tracking interluse. Edited by Chris, Nov 13 2011, 12:40 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Nov 13 2011, 12:41 AM Post #98 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They are not colleagues. She is a bigmouth that got dumped in him. They have never worked together before, and I'm quite certain never will again. As for "deifying" or "demonizing", I did nothing of the sort on either score. I have no great love of Muller, who has made many stupid statements over the years. That's why the Koch brothers picked him. It is only with this latest report, where he finally admitted he's been wrong, that he has risen in my estimation. I can only hope you will do the same. As for Curry, she most definitely did NOT use BEST data, at least not honestly. I have showed repeatedly how she cherry picked a 9 year part of her own slice of the overall data, very much against scientific principles. Apparently my simple explanation was beyond you, so let's put up a graphic example. I'll take that selfsame data and produce Horrific results, like this: (Actually, I'm being more intellectually honest that she was, as I'm starting with the entire chart.) ![]() Note how I've picked a low point in 1996, and drawn a red line to a high point in 2005, very close to the same 9 year time period she did. Extrapolate my red line, and it's quite easy to see how the entire planet will be on fire by 2030! So has Global Warming "paused", as she claims, or is it screaming out of control, far beyond any predictions, as my line shows? The truth is neither, of course.
It's quite simple to explain, Chris. Like Curry, you're lying. The BEST chart proves it. As do hundreds of others. My invitation still stands. Find a genuine working Climate Scientist not in the pay of Big Energy who supports your position, and I'll be only too happy to have an open discussion. Until then, I'm putting you in the same category as Jim. Too silly to bother with. Edited by Brewster, Nov 13 2011, 01:08 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Nov 13 2011, 12:42 AM Post #99 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You're failing miserably on both scores, especially in this case. |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Nov 13 2011, 01:33 AM Post #100 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"As for "deifying" or "demonizing", I did nothing of the sort on either score." Example just above that statement: "She is a bigmouth that got dumped in him." Thank you for contradicting yourself again. "As for Curry, she most definitely did NOT use BEST data, at least not honestly." Ah, so she did use BEST data. It's just that you don't like it so you call it dishonest. "I have showed repeatedly how she cherry picked a 9 year part of her own slice of the overall data, very much against scientific principles." No you haven't, you have merely claimed she did. She simply focused in on data over that last decade or so that disproves your hypothesis. You zoom out to ignore details. If she cherry picks, then so do you: "Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position." You are suppressing data that your hypothesis cannot account for. "I'm being more intellectually honest that she was" Where does she engage in ad hom and straw men like you? "Note how I've picked a low point in 1996, and drawn a red line to a high point in 2005, very close to the same 9 year time period she did." Right, you picked a view and she picked a view. Yours generalizes the data to fit your conclusion. She points out the detailed data doesn't support it. "Extrapolate my red line, and it's quite easy to see how the entire planet will be on fire by 2030!" Hell fire? "The truth is neither, of course." Ah, so you finally come down to say what I've been saying. Thank you. "Like Curry, you're lying." Where? Another unsubstantiated accusation. "The BEST chart proves it." Science doesn't prove things. You view of BEST data supports your hypothesis. The data Curry points to falsifies your hypothesis. Again, your view on top, her view of the same data, same source, on bottom. ![]() You have not addressed the data, which, given continuing if not increasing rises in CO2 levels, shows no corresponding rise in temps. If as you claim rising CO2 causes rising temps, why is that not happening for over a decade now? "Until then, I'm putting you in the same category as Jim. Too silly to bother with." And that is the best you can manage, more ad hom. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)







10:41 PM Jul 11
