Chillbill, our global warming denialist, has posted three comments recently. None have much to do directly with global warming. The main thrust is that poor chillbill feels misrepresented and that I am posting lies.
I agree with chillbill in that somebody here is lying and attempting to misrepresent, I just happen to disagree as to who it is. I'm going to take a close look at that question, my position will be clear about who the liar is. The reader will have to judge for himself.
In the first two paragraphs of this diatribe you manage only one sentence that is not intentionally misleading, or an outright lie. I am not using the term lie in a way which might allow that you are simply mistaken. You are attempting to deceive. Why?
You once again become a liar to support a speculative opinion against skeptics you label as 'denialists'.
So what was in my first two paragraphs that curried such a response? Chillbill does not specify. So let's take a look:
n my previous blog I looked at the reliability of the first paper that chillbill, our new global warming denialist linked to "refute" the science behind global warming. That paper claimed to be peer-reviewed and on first look seemed to present reasonable data. It turns out however, that it was NOT peer-reviewed. It was published in a journal devoted to pseudoscientific crap. And the data it published was bogus.
As a short aside, in the comments on that blog chillbill takes me to task for "attacking the source". [sarcasm] Imagine me questioning the reliability of a global warming denialist source in a blog entitled GLOBAL WARMING CANARDS: THE RELIABILITY OF GLOBAL WARMING DENIALISTS -- PART 1. How misleading was that?[/sarcasm] I suspect that he will give the same whine for this blog, since it is PART 2. I will look at the other paper he linked to to refute the science behind global warming. It too is fatally flawed. Chillbill wants me to respond to his claim that the present temperature shows global warming isn't happening. As I already stated I will. I am answering chillbill's canards in the order he presented them. But this is science, it is EASY to post a link, put up a picture, and misrepresent the science. It takes time to correct those misrepresentations. Perhaps if chillbill had taken his time and ACTUALLY INVESTIGATED THINGS he would not have suffered the embarrassment of being shown that his source was bogus. But he didn't investigate his source even though the blog he responded to specifically stated the source was bogus. I also find it instructive that instead of LEARNING from his mistake he resorts to his typical tactic of misdirection. He ignores what the blog does say to bring up something the blog never intended to address -- the global warming denialist canard about the recent cool temperatures as disproving global warming. Never fear, that blog will be the one after this one.
Now, it is a known fact that chillbill does not like being called a global warming denialist, but when you deny the science behind global warming it is an appropriately accurate description for your actions. If he doesn't want to be called a global warming denialist, then he needs to make it clear that he accepts the conclusions that mainstream climatologists have come up with ... (1) The earth is presently warming. (2) The principle agent in that rise is CO2 emissions from (3) human sources. If you accept that then no one can rightfully call you a global warming denialist. If you don't then ... YOU ARE A GLOBAL WARMING DENIALIST. Simple as that really. Why even object to the terminology?
In my previous blog, I did take a look at the first paper that chillbill linked to. Here is the comment in another blog in which chillbill links to it:
Here is a link to the 'peer reviewed study' portion of the web site:
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Article_HTML/Review_Article_HT...
Most of the charts and data they use shows the normalcy of the current glacial and temperature trends over selected time periods. The present on almost all of their charts is 1998-2002. Do you have any comment on the down trend in global temperatures since that time? How many more years of temperature decline would it take before you joined the skeptics?
It should be noted that he linked to this AFTER I had already questioned the reliability of the Petition Project. In the post that he put this comment on, I said:
... There are so many things wrong with this "petition" that it is really not worth considering; it has no credibility what-so-ever.
A reasonable person might get the impression that what I would say is that the source is unreliable. I won't repeat a whole blog here but suffice it to say that the source IS unreliable.
The paper does claim to be peer-reviewed. However, having other wackaloons look at a paper does not make a wackaloon paper peer-reviewed. The journal it was published in was a journal that publishes all sorts of wackaloonish material from HIV denialism (the claim that HIV is not the causative agent for AIDS) and creationism. It is indeed an embarrassment to be shown that your source is so incredibly bogus, but if you used the source it is neither misleading nor dishonest for that to be pointed out.
Chillbill did take me to task for attacking the source. It is in a comment entitledhttp://www.progressiveu.org/blog/51123-global-warming-canards-reliability-global-warming-denialists-part-1#comment-292110 in which the line after the title says:
...when you have little or nothing to say about the data. [ellipses in chillbill's original comment]
As a matter of fact, I DID talk about the data in that blog:
But, so what? Even wackaloons can sometimes be right ... right? We shouldn't dismiss this as crap without at least considering what they have to say. ... Actually, I at this point I felt very much like doing just that. I'm not a big fan of wasting my time. But I skimmed over it anyway. I picked up on a few problems even with my limited knowledge of climatology:
I then spent the next 6 paragraphs discussing the data and problems with it.
It should also be noted that in his comment linked to above, chillbill went on to post a graph that was NOT in the study chillbill linked to ... as though it refuted my claim about the unreliability of his source. On might (rightfully in my opinion) claim that was dishonesty on his part.
The title of the blog that chillbill accuses me of "Attacking the source ..." was GLOBAL WARMING CANARDS: THE RELIABILITY OF GLOBAL WARMING DENIALIST. So attacking the source was the whole point of the blog. Chillbill chose to give this source credence over that of mainstream climatologists. Why? The answer quite obviously is that it told him what he wanted to hear.
I think I have defended my two agregious first paragraph's very well. There is nothing I think I should retract. There is nothing I see there as being misleading or dishonest.
Let's continue with poor chilly's complaints:
The rest of this lengthy effort reaches a few reasonably valid conclusions. Paleotemperature records are unreliable (is anyone surprised?). If one of these dubious methods (tree rings) is omitted your beloved 'hockey stick' of rising temperatures is non-existent. Which is all that the mathematician that published the paper wished to point out. You present nothing to refute that whatsoever, but waste quite a few words not doing it.
Just like here, it is very easy to lie and misrepresent. To counteract the misrepresentations and lies, one must do some explaining. That is why I did the "lengthy effort". If I were writing merely for chillbill then it would be a waste of time. He will just lie and misrepresent some more. But I am not. I am writing for anyone that truly wants to learn something, and for people who may know more than me and are willing to teach me something I may be wrong about. Chillbill is not one of those people.
Take the above paragraph of chillbill's for example. (1) Each particular technique of paleodating has its problems, and cannot be considered wholly reliable on its own, however, since all techiques point to the same conclusion taken together they are reliable. (2) Even eliminating the tree-ring data does not get rid of the "hockey stick". Loehli's corrected graph (correcting HIS OWN MISTAKES NOT THE MISTAKES OF MAINSTREAM CLIMATOLOGISTS) quits at 1950. If you include temperature readings since then, the "hockey stick" shape returns.
"The corrected data continue to show the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly. The confidence intervals” “indicate that the MWP was significantly warmer than the bimillennial average during most of approximately 820 – 1040 AD, at the 5% level (2-tailed). Likewise, the LIA was significantly cooler than the bimillennial average during most of approximately 1440-1740 AD.”
Chillbill quotes this from the paper as though it means something important. It doesn't. Chillbill includes it in the comment either because he doesn't understand it and/or he hopes it will confuse a naive reader. YES, Loehli's data does show the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. So what? So does mainstream climatological data. Mainstream climatological data is why we think there were those periods in the first place, not from Loehli's data. Mainstream climatology doesn't show quite the fluctuation that Loehli's graph does, but mainstream climatologists didn't cherry-pick their data the way that Loehli did. They included the tree-ring data -- which is among the better data climatologists have
.
DB you might also note indisputable historical facts such as the settlement of Greenland during the warm period in question.
Er ... that is another global warming denialist canard. Loehli didn't make much mention of it in his papers, so why would I include it in a blog that is looking at his data? I may put it on my list of global warming denialist canards to respond to in the future, but it is not appropriate in this blog.
"The information that is left has survived a barrage of attacks on its credibility. This suggests to me at least that the information is trustworthy ..."
Or perhaps you can merely label skeptics prejudicialy, lie about things they say, and pretend to discredit sources, when you have done nothing of the sort.
The stuff that is in quotation marks is stuff that I am supposed to have said. From chillbill's remark to the sentence I could not place its context. So I did a little search. Here is the paragraph the sentence comes from:
Science is an adversarial process. Before a scientist can get a paper published he must show to adversaries (peer reviewers) that his results are (1) important within the field; (2) without apparent flaw with respect to technique of obtaining and analyzing the data; and (3) the conclusions he draws are appropriate from the data presented. After the paper is published it is fair game for other scientists to test and extend. If the paper is truly important, any faults will be discovered by future investigators. The information that is left has survived a barrage of attacks on its credibility. This suggests to me at least that the information is trustworthy ... or at least as trustworthy as we have any right to expect anything to be.
I personally do not see how chillbill can look at himself in the mirror without utter disgust. He has taken a paragraph which is claiming that the process of mainstream science tends to ensure credibility, extracted a single sentence from it which taken out of its context in no way implies what it does IN CONTEXT, and then gives a cryptic response that suggests the intent of what I was saying was something other than what it was. And ... he does this in a comment in which he accuses ME of lying. I don't see how ANYBODY can read this and NOT come away with the impression that either chillbill doesn't have a clue what he is talking about and/or chillbill is obviously trying project a misleading picture.
"There is no credible scientific doubt at the moment that global warming is real and its principal cause is man-made. I issue this challenge to global warming denialists ... find a paper published in a mainstream climatology journal (ie one indexed in Journal Citation Reports) within the past 20 years that produce results that call either of those two conclusions in question."
This is an interesting challenge, but the definitions might need refinement.
First Global Warming:
Are you referring to the actual change of -0.4 C to +0.4 C from the historical average, which was actually recorded over the past 100 years? Or does that term refer to the speculative temperature projections you seem to think guarantee disaster for all life on earth?
Next 'its principal cause is man-made.'
Are you including all human impact, or CO2 alone?
Well gee, chillbill. What do you think the conclusions of mainstream climatology is?
When we talk about global warming we are talking about the current rise in temperatures the earth is undergoing is due primarily to human greenhouse gas emissionns with CO2 at present being the most important.
That concludes chillbill's first response on that subject ... Let's look at the second one:
I mistakenly gave DB credit for a non-misleading statement in the first two paragraphs. I was assuming that he would actually address the question of the current decline in temperatures in his next blog. Since he did nothing to answer my question regarding that data, but instead continued his string of lies and evasions I must withdraw that exception.
I think I have already successfully defended all my sentences in not only the first two paragraphs but for the whole blog as well. I will address his comments from my "next blog" in a second. In his previous comment he gave me credit for a single non-misleading sentence. He never specified which one that was. I wonder what one he now takes issue with that he didn't before. I would have guessed he wouldn't have taken issue with this one:
"That paper [chillbill linked to] claimed to be peer-reviewed and on first look seemed to present reasonable data." I mean he did link to it and HE said it was in the peer-reviewed section of the Petition Project (I actually didn't check to see if they claimed peer-review, I took chillbill at his word -- which may well have been a mistake). Does he now not believe that even on first look the data seems reasonable??
So much for chillbill's comments and whines on that blog. He has some more on my next blog:
"Where I live ... Houston, Texas ... it has been colder than normal so far this year."
Where I live in Jacksonville, FL we are having an unusually warm winter thus far.
And what is the importance of this? None ... other than chillbill cannot even the use the excuse of his personal experience for claiming that the recent cooling denies global warming.
"chillbill thinks the recent cool weather disproves global warming."
Link or lie.
I have never said anything of the kind.
Notice again that chillbill pulls a sentence out of its context. Whenever that happens you can be pretty well assured that chillbill is trying to obscure something. Let's look at the quote in context:
Our global warming denialist, chillbill thinks the recent cool weather disproves global warming. To make matters even more impressive, this past year 2008 was the coldest of the decade. Many global warming denialist have this canard as a central point in their denial of global warming science, including apparently chillbill (he includes versions of it in his comments here, here, here, here, here, and here).
Aha!! Chillbill is claiming that I give no links to his claims. I gave 6.
The first link goes to this comment. The reference is to this graph he inserted:
In fact, I included a larger version of THAT graph in my blog.
The second link goes to this comment. It refers to this paragraph:
Here is the chart since 1990 compared to IPCC projections:http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTYwMjRiZjJhMmUxYWE2MmQ0NDZ...
The first decade of this century has shown declining temperatures thus far including 2008, which is not included on this graph. Has 2009 been cold enough for you?
Chillbill's link incidently goes to a global warming denialist blog called PLANET GORE hosted by that [sarcasm] bastion of science, The National Review [/sarcasm]. It is where chillbill got his graph from.
The third link goes to this comment. It refers to this paragraph:
Most of the charts and data they use shows the normalcy of the current glacial and temperature trends over selected time periods. The present on almost all of their charts is 1998-2002. Do you have any comment on the down trend in global temperatures since that time? How many more years of temperature decline would it take before you joined the skeptics?
The "charts and data" that is used comes from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons article that chillbill first linked to. And in actual fact they are NOT normalized at all since the authors of that report didn't take into account that the convention among mainstream climatologists to use 1950 as the reference date instead of the year in which they publish their results.
The fourth link goes to this comment. It refers to this paragraph:
Do you dispute any of these datum since that first exchange(14 months ago)?
1) Global temperatures have declined.
2) Sea Ice has increased.
3) CO2 emissions have exceeded projections (at least until the sudden economic contraction in Oct '08).
The fifth link goes to this comment. It refers to this paragraph:
"(2) The cooling trend over the past decade shows that either there is no global warming or the warming has stopped."
Yes we are in a cooling trend. When will ANY doubt about the CATASTROPHE aspect of global warming enter your head?
This one pretty much cements the accusation, doesn't it.
The final link goes to this comment. It refers to this graph that chillbill inserted:
And I even included that graph in my response.
So chillbill has accused me of lying and not leaving links to verify it. Notice carefully how he leaves out the context that would show that I did give the supported links. Who is lying here ... me or chillbill?
"Many global warming denialist have this canard as a central point in their denial of global warming science, including apparently chillbill (he includes versions of it in his comments here, here, here, here, here, and here)."
Actually I have simply asked you a question that you do not wish to answer. The reason for your avoidance is painfully obvious.
In case you forgot. My original question was: How many more years of decline will it take for ANY doubt to enter your mind?
Do you dispute any of these datum ... ?
1) Global temperatures have declined.
2) Sea Ice has increased.
3) CO2 emissions have exceeded projections (at least until the sudden economic contraction in Oct '08).
Notice how chillbill includes the part where I do give the links to his claims about recent temperature refuting global warming. However, it is impossible for a naive reader to tell that since the links are removed their context. Obviously chillbill was aware I did give links. Obviously he has intentionally tried to obscure that fact.
He also says that I did not answer his 3 questions:
Do you dispute any of these datum ... ? 1) Global temperatures have declined. 2) Sea Ice has increased. 3) CO2 emissions have exceeded projections (at least until the sudden economic contraction in Oct '08).
With respect to ANYTHING MEANINGFUL in regard to whether or not global warming is real, YES!!! I do deny that global temperatures have declined. In a future blog I will address the sea ice problem ... but as a forerunner -- the answer will be that any perceived increase in sea ice is just as misleading as any perceived decrease in global temperatures. As for CO2 emissions exceeding projections, I'll give a qualified "Agree" answer. Climate models are based on physics not ESP. The biggest variable is what will be the response of humanity to the problem. Will we curb CO2 emissions or not? Will we develop future technologies to handle the problem? Different models use different projections. So far we are proceeding along worst case scenarios in which CO2 emission continue to increase.
With respect to ANYTHING MEANINGFUL in regard to whether or not global warming is real, YES!!! I do deny that global temperatures have declined. In a future blog I will address the sea ice problem ... but as a forerunner -- the answer will be that any perceived increase in sea ice is just as misleading as any perceived decrease in global temperatures. As for CO2 emissions exceeding projections, I'll give a qualified "Agree" answer.
Those answers to his questions are in the very same blog that he makes the comments claiming I refused to answer his questions. Again, I wonder how it is that chillbill can look in the mirror without a feeling of utter disgust.
"I do deny that global temperatures have declined." So you are in fact the only denialist here.
DB BS answer translation:
2 misleading, IE I need a very long blog to obscure the simple facts.
1 agree, but only a 'qualified' agreement because it makes me nervous that more than the expected CO2 has not had the disastrous effects I crave.
Notice how chillbill robs my response of its context. If he left it in context, of course, he would be unable to claim that I couldn't answer his questions. That is why he did it. The next thing he does is try to substitute his words for mine. How dishonest can one person POSSIBLY be?
One small thing I need to respond to in order to make my responses complete. I deny a lot of things. I don't mind be called a denialist so long as I truly deny the proposition I am being accused of denying. So if chillbill wants to call me a recent-cooling-is-evidence-against-global-warming denialist then I am happy to accept the label.
One thing I do NOT deny, however, is the science of global warming. So I am not a global warming denialist. Chillbill likes to maintain a pretense of plausible deniability concerning ANY of his views. It is just another one of his dishonest ploys. He has presented global warming denialist canard after canard. No one can reasonably present the arguments that he has and at the same time claim that he doesn't deny the science of global warming. Chillbill has no reasonable objection to being labeled a global warming denialist.
It is true that chillbill and I have not gotten along. However, I have found that what I responded to in this blog is not an exception to chillbill's argument style. Given that, I think any reasonable person can see why I'm not a big chillbill fan.. Notice that I have made no effort to present chillbill's words in ANY misleading manner. Indeed, I quote him fully. Can the same be said of chillbill about my words? Notice that I have tried to justify my claims of his malfeasance with evidence. Can the same be said of chillbill about me? The only thing I have not explicitly stated is the full extent of my evaluation of chillbill's character. To do so would almost certainly result in a terms-of-service (TOS) violation.
I do not intend to waste my time responding to such dishonesty in the future. I will simply link to this blog to demonstrate his habit. I may incorporate any new global warming canards into future blogs. I will make that determination as they arise.
'Nuff said,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Is this a very healthy way to be spending your time?
I no longer necessarily have to read a thing he writes. I have a canned response
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
haha
My opponent is the hype you are trying to present as if it were true. This is why I address facts vs speculation as opposed to lying about you or what you say. If this discussion could lead to a clearer understanding of the actual extent of what is KNOWN vs IMAGINED, I will have met my goal. You seem to think a clearer picture of the facts is a defeat for your side, and perhaps it would be.
---
"How many more years of temperature decline would it take before you joined the skeptics?"
Does your avoidance of this question indicate that regardless of actual temperature trends you are going to take your faith in the accuracy of the Global Warming Hype to your grave?
---
OK, piece by piece:
"n my previous blog I looked at the reliability of the first paper that chillbill, our new global warming denialist linked to "refute" the science behind global warming."
Lie#
1-You attempted to discredit the authors and journal rather than looking at the actual arguments and data presented. This is EXACTLY the reason I gave you a link to their actual argument. Ad hominem fallacy.
2-I have never 'denied' global warming. Straw man Fallacy
3-Note I did not make any claim about what their argument 'refuted'. I linked to it to point out that the petition which was the focus of your arguments in the blog was not actually pertinent to the question at hand. Their data and conclusions were the actual opposition to your views, not their reputation or how badly you could smear it.
---
"That paper claimed to be peer-reviewed and on first look seemed to present reasonable data. It turns out however, that it was NOT peer-reviewed. It was published in a journal devoted to pseudoscientific crap. And the data it published was bogus."
Perhaps they do not consider their peers to be the people you find acceptable. I'm confident their pseudo scientific crapmonger brethren reviewed it. If the data itself was bogus you failed to back that up. You have written an entire blog about the organization and authors behind it, but did not actually refute the information, though you did not that it was real data taken from peer reviewed sources. The only actual attack you managed on any of it was a time discrepancy on some charts.
Here lie may be too strong a word. Misleading unsupported opinion seems to fit better.
---
"As a short aside, in the comments on that blog chillbill takes me to task for "attacking the source". [sarcasm] Imagine me questioning the reliability of a global warming denialist source in a blog entitled GLOBAL WARMING CANARDS: THE RELIABILITY OF GLOBAL WARMING DENIALISTS -- PART 1. How misleading was that?[/sarcasm] I suspect that he will give the same whine for this blog, since it is PART 2."
AH! so you did read why I linked to their data. I thought you might have missed that since you chose to make up your own reason for the link and assign it to me. So asking you to address facts rather than personalities is a 'whine'. Why?
---
"I will look at the other paper he linked to to refute the science behind global warming. It too is fatally flawed."
Sentence 1 you use your straw man fallacy again in an attempt to discredit persons rather than facts, but you actually do what you say when it comes to examining the paper. Sentence 2 you are lying as shown by your examination of the paper. The paper shows exactly what it claims to show: That current temperatures are not unusual. The authors do not make any other claim, and accurately represent how they arrived at their findings. The only 'flaw' fatal or otherwise is the same timing discrepancy noted earlier, but the article I linked to contains the corrected version, so that is moot.
---
"Chillbill wants me to respond to his claim that the present temperature shows global warming isn't happening."
You are a slow reader, so I will restate the question AGAIN:
How many more years of temperature decline will it take to shake your blind faith in the coming Global Warming Catastrophe?
You have avoided it so many times that it might be easier if I ask a different version:
Would you at least accept that maybe you were overreacting a tiny bit if twenty years from now temperatures are near or below current temperatures? If not, why not?
---
"As I already stated I will. I am answering chillbill's canards in the order he presented them. But this is science, it is EASY to post a link, put up a picture, and misrepresent the science. It takes time to correct those misrepresentations."
Actually it is easy to point to simple facts, and takes a great deal more effort to rationalize away that data. The main reason for the ease of what I am doing as opposed to the difficulty of your actions is that I do not have a dogmatic opinion to defend and you do. I am content to wait and see what actually happens.
The science has a range of predictions concerning Global Warming. You seem to have taken the most extreme projections quite seriously. Reality, when it finally happens, may be even worse, but there are also equally valid (also not proven just like the ones that get you so excited) scientific projections that see 0.6 C of increase over the next century. The media takes the extreme scenario in popularizations because it is a better story, not because it is more likely.
The future is unknown. All of the maybes are called speculation. Mature realistic people know this. Why don't you know it at your age?
---
"Perhaps if chillbill had taken his time and ACTUALLY INVESTIGATED THINGS he would not have suffered the embarrassment of being shown that his source was bogus. But he didn't investigate his source even though the blog he responded to specifically stated the source was bogus."
Why would your choice of subjects embarrass me? I assumed that you took aim at the weakest thing you could find, and ignored the rest as you always seem prone to in these discussions. I think you avoided addressing the facts they used so I linked to them, and told you so. You then decided to lie about what I actually said, and attack me. One of us should be embarrassed about that. My own embarrasment is limited to why I am even explaining this to someone that wishes to misrepresent, ignore, and lie to make their point, I should know better perhaps on day I will.
---
"I also find it instructive that instead of LEARNING from his mistake he resorts to his typical tactic of misdirection. He ignores what the blog does say to bring up something the blog never intended to address -- the global warming denialist canard about the recent cool temperatures as disproving global warming."
So, facts about temperature are out of place in a discussion about Global Warming? I used 'misdirection' to address the fact that the people you were bashing had a more realistic view than your own based on current facts and trends. How dare I?!
Please quote me about what that data proves, or show how it is incorrect....Or if you can't just make up a lie or two about what I said or meant. Speaking with you does leave me feeling a bit dirty, but just because you are unpleasant doesn't mean you should get away with it.
---
Never fear, that blog will be the one after this one.
This was the sentence I thought was not a lie or misdirection or personal attack. I was wrong. You took quite a while to get around to it, but the only defense you had about current temperature decline is that it had only been happening for ten years. So you lied about refuting it.
Just as the rise (1976 to 1997) which you see as proving your disaster scenario is short, so is the current trend. May I assume that you will admit you were wrong if the decline continues for another ten years?
---
"...the conclusions that mainstream climatologists have come up with ... (1) The earth is presently warming. (2) The principle agent in that rise is CO2 emissions from (3) human sources."
(1) It was ten years ago...Maybe it will again sooner or later.
(2) & (3) Sounds reasonable enough to me.
---
"He has taken a paragraph which is claiming that the process of mainstream science tends to ensure credibility, extracted a single sentence from it which taken out of its context in no way implies what it does IN CONTEXT, and then gives a cryptic response that suggests the intent of what I was saying was something other than what it was."
Actually I was comparing your own methods in this exchange vs science as represented by your own statement. Sorry if you are unable to understand. It seemed quite clear to me in the context of a comment on what a liar you are.
I am amused by your assertion that the meaning of what I quoted was changed by lack of context. How does the meaning of your quote change?
---
"Well gee, chillbill. What do you think the conclusions of mainstream climatology is?"
WooHoo! you are asking me instead of making up my position for me? This IS progress! Why not answer the actual questions I asked concerning your challenge which did not contain the phrase 'mainstream climatology' at all? I assume you are trying to weasel around answering as usual.
---
You respond to this with many references to what I have said and NOT ONE SINGLE TIME did I say what you claim. The conclusion is that you LIE when you say I made that claim.
I really loved this one:
NO, DB it doesn't.
Me Quoting You saying something is a bit different from me saying it
You want to PERSONALIZE the simple facts concerning recent temperature so badly that you assumed that I meant something I did not say to satisfy your subconscious desires. You may be neurotic rather than purposefully deceitful.
Also, if repetition is required, you ignored the simple question again even while quoting it:
How many more years of temperature decline will it take for ANY doubt to enter your mind?
---
"The next thing he does is try to substitute his words for mine. How dishonest can one person POSSIBLY be?"
You are kidding here, right?
---
"So if chillbill wants to call me a recent-cooling-is-evidence-against-global-warming denialist then I am happy to accept the label."
HOW MUCH, or HOW LONG will that cooling have to continue to change that denialism? You only have about 20+/- years of life expectancy left. Could it happen before you die?
---
"It is true that chillbill and I have not gotten along. However, I have found that what I responded to in this blog is not an exception to chillbill's argument style. Given that, I think any reasonable person can see why I'm not a big chillbill fan...I do not intend to waste my time responding to such dishonesty in the future."
I am flattered that you addressed so many blogs to me by name, but it is just another example of the portion of your rhetoric I find most objectionable. When discussing, or arguing, the person making the argument is not important. You are PERSONALIZING rather than addressing the facts or even actual position. This is often a sign that your own argument is weak, as it is here.
I like you just fine DB, but I only know your writing, anything negative I have said is addressed to your words alone. I wish you nothing but the best. I will not even mind if you are correct about the dire consequences of Global Warming. I do wish you could take criticism less personally, and see the difference between speculation and fact when it relates to your prejudices.
---
"I wonder how it is that chillbill can look in the mirror without a feeling of utter disgust."
I suppose I take relative comfort in the comparison to you.
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
--Andre Gide
Chillbill has been shown to be much less than truthful. His favorite technique is to take small segments out of context and lie about them. Before believing anything in this reply the reader is well-advised to corroborate the context in the post above. If he says anything of interest please post a reply here and I'll take a look at it to see if it is worth a response.
Thanks,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
How many more years of temperature decline will it take for ANY doubt to enter your mind?
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
--Andre Gide
Mr. chillbill can you not infer from the information DB has provided, both rhetorical and graphical, that a trend line downward for a decade would be representative of significant change (not just a 1, 2 or even 3 year fluctuation)? If you cannot come to this conclusion on your own then it doesn't seem you are as smart as you seem to be trying to present yourself. If you can and have concluded this then why do you keep asking the question?
"can you not infer from the information DB has provided, both rhetorical and graphical, that a trend line downward for a decade would be representative of significant change (not just a 1, 2 or even 3 year fluctuation)?"
He has already claimed that ten years of decline is imaterial:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/51150-global-warming-canards-recent-coo...
When a person becomes too commited to a theory, as DB has in this case, they will not admit that ANY fact could change their mind. Which is illustrated by his refusal to answer this simple question for the tenth time.
---
"If you cannot come to this conclusion on your own then it doesn't seem you are as smart as you seem to be trying to present yourself."
Whether I am a genius or a drooling idiot is just as meaningless as a concensus when it comes to a question of fact or the validity of a scientific theory. At this point DB has personalized his defense to avoid confronting facts, or considering anything except the correctness of his own opinion.
---
"why do you keep asking the question?"
I am interested in hearing an answer, and would be amused by another evasion.
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
--Andre Gide
Thank you for your considered response to my post. However, I find your post less considered than it could have been. For example your first sentence states that DB has already claimed that ten years of decline is immaterial and then you include a link which I can only assume you feel supports that claim. I, of course, opened the link and find it refers us back to a DB blog dated January 28, 2009. I skimmed through the blog but failed to find a comment which supported your claim. Could you please quote the sentence in which that claim is made?
In fact I find a quote which seems to support my claim I originally made in the paragraph you include as the first part of your 2-12-09 post. To keep you from having to search through all of DB's post I include the quote below.
"As for the question of how greenhouse gas emissions are affecting our present climate global warming science generally use a ten-year average ...."
Your answer to my question regarding your reason for asking "How many more years of temperature decline will it take for ANY doubt to enter your mind?" seems somewhat silly since the quote I gave from DB gives one possible answer to that. However, your question is even more misleading because you ask how many MORE years of decline is needed to sow doubt. The use of 'more' seems to indicate that you have made some important impact in the global warming claim that the climate temperature trend is up. Yet the DB quote below, from the same blog you referred me to, shows that he does not admit to a climate temperature downward trend ( weather fluctuations perhaps but he does define the difference between climate and weather).
"ANYTHING MEANINGFUL in regard to whether or not global warming is real, YES!!! I do deny that global tempertures have declined."
"For example your first sentence states that DB has already claimed that ten years of decline is immaterial...I skimmed through the blog but failed to find a comment which supported your claim. Could you please quote the sentence in which that claim is made?"
Just a few lines below the quote you provided DB makes this claim:
"That is a decade, thus on the climate scale used by global warming scientists this resolves down into a single data point. No one can make a forecast from a single data point.."
You CANNOT measure the temperature of an entire decade AT ALL. You cannot measure a year, month, week or even a single day. ANY temperature measurement is only representative of a single moment at one place. That measurement is generally the high and/or low for the day in a specific location. Many locations may be grouped together to get an average for a wider area or time period.
The global average temperature for a single day involves hundreds of temperature readings. When this average goes 3,652 days or more with no upward trend it is not a 'single data point' to ANY unbiased observer. It is only a 'single data point' to someone that wishes to ignore the data.
---
"your question is even more misleading because you ask how many MORE years of decline is needed to sow doubt. The use of 'more' seems to indicate that you have made some important impact in the global warming claim that the climate temperature trend is up."
A trend upward means temperatures are rising. They were doing that in a very real and measurable way from the late 70s to the 90s. The past decade they did not. NASA is the source for that(data, not opinion). How are you mislead by the global average temperature chart? I am not predicting that the current downward trend will continue, just asking how much longer until a zealot will allow facts to influence his opinion.
---
"Yet the DB quote below, from the same blog you referred me to, shows that he does not admit to a climate temperature downward trend ( weather fluctuations perhaps but he does define the difference between climate and weather)."
A single day of temperature readings from hundreds of points all over the planet do not reflect 'weather' once they are averaged. Certainly he defines weather, but his definition is anything but the commonly used one. To claim that a decade of such averages is 'a single data point' is simply denial. The denial is obvious and the possibility of continuing declining temperatures is the subject he seems unable to consider. Why? Is it impossible in your opinion also?
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
--Andre Gide
Welcome back to the game Mr. Chillbill.
After catching up on our exchanges (specifically those dated February 7, 2009 and February 12) it seems the issue in most contention is if D.B. Claims 10 years of data are immaterial or not. You make that claim in your comment dated February 12th (and in previous entries). I stated that I could not find a statement in DB's blog of January 28, 2009 that supported your claim. You responded with this quote from DB's blog:
“That is a decade, .... a single data point. No one can make a forecast from a single data point.”
You seem to present this as evidence that DB thinks a single data point is immaterial. I do not draw that conclusion from that quote.
Immaterial means the data has no relevance on the issue. DB does not make this claim. However, DB does go on in the rest of his blog to describe how a data point alone is not predictive but when included within a series of data points it becomes part of a trend and that a trend line can be predictive. He does a fairly convincing job of including this data into a trend line that supports his global warming argument.
Your misrepresentation of DB's statements seem so contrived as to be purposely misleading. If this is so it would support DB's claim (in this blog dated February 2) that:
“He (Chillbill) will just lie and misrepresent some more.” (in 23rd paragraph above)
Forgive my skepticism, but at first glance you appeared to be a bogus persona for the following reasons:
You have been a member of this site for 1 year 45 weeks, and have never posted a blog. Further you have only commented on two blogs, this and one other, both Blogs were attacks directed at another Blogger by your only buddy: Darwins Beagle.
Upon seeing these facts I at first felt that you "seem so contrived as to be purposely misleading" and most likely were in fact a second alias of the Beagle himself. Then I read your only other post before our exchange and found this quote:
"I know Darwin’s Beagle personally. I assure you he is not a “as full as bitter bile and hatred” person. Never has been. I have know him as long as he has been alive. He is friendly, fun loving, trusting and a loving father and husband."
So I guess maybe you are his Mom. Care to explain?
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
--Andre Gide
"You seem to present this as evidence that DB thinks a single data point is immaterial. I do not draw that conclusion from that quote.
Immaterial means the data has no relevance on the issue. DB does not make this claim. However, DB does go on in the rest of his blog to describe how a data point alone is not predictive but when included within a series of data points it becomes part of a trend and that a trend line can be predictive. He does a fairly convincing job of including this data into a trend line that supports his global warming argument."
I think that this is your argument, correct me if there is anything else.
Yes, DB would regard this as a material piece of evidence if it supported his position. The question is will he reassess that position if another 'data point' or two also go against his position as this last one(decade) has? He refuses to answer.
Trend lines are useful predictive tools in linear systems. They are far less predictive in non-linear chaotic systems. Examples of such non-linear systems are economics, weather, and climate. Consider a ten year trend line of housing prices in 2004. A simpleton applying this trend as a prediction in that year would have gleefully bought a home or even more than one for 0 down payment with an adjustable rate mortgage or an interest only loan confident that the rapid appreciation of home values would allow him to 'flip' the house in a year for a big profit. Skip forward a year to 2005 when the next 'data point' in the trend indicated that prices were stabilizing while sales rate (number of homes sold) was still remarkably above the historical norm, indicating that many buyers, like the Beagle, were disregarding this break in the previous trend. 2006-2008 has shown why they should not have ignored that 'single data point' as home values have plummeted.
The timely example of home prices is also not predictive of the future trend we should expect in global temperatures. It is illustrative of why projections based on trends are perilous when predicting the future of chaotic systems which by their nature NEVER PROGRESS IN A STRAIGHT LINE. If temperatures decline for the next decade as they have in the last ten years it will in no way invalidate the greenhouse potential of CO2, but it should reduce the alarmism that many have bought into regarding the significance of that effect.
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
--Andre Gide
Wow! Thank you Chillbill for your post. It was very interesting, at least to me. I fear my interest in your post is so personal that it will not be interesting to anyone else. Therefore, I think we should not hijack DB's blog to further this personal exploration.
However, since we are at this point let me answer some of your questions. I am not DB. I am flattered that you would consider the possibility. I am not DB's mother. I am sure DB got an ambivalent chuckle from that statement.
Actually, returning to the subject of this blog, it really doesn't matter whether I am DB or his mother. Since you do not comment on the substance of my argument I assume you have abandoned your line of reasoning. If so, I applaud your ability to recognize when you are wrong.
How have you known him his entire life?
You only denied with no clarification.
---
"Actually, returning to the subject of this blog, it really doesn't matter whether I am DB or his mother."
On the contrary the subject of this blog is comparative veracity and you look like another Darwins Beagle deception.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/51175-chillbill-canards-his-opponents-m...
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
--Andre Gide
Mr. Chillbill, for what it's worth think older, much more hansom, much less educated, brother.
Once again the brilliant Darwin's Beagle takes a debate to another level of intelligence that only a few of us can acctually understand. It appears to me that the conclusion we must come too is Chillbill refuses to actually read (and comprehend)the entirety of what is before him prior to making drawn out accusations and lies about mr. Darwins beagle. Hugs Darwin. Glad to see you're still going strong. It's been awhile since I've been on the site, But it makes me very happy that there are still some friendly faces around.
Ceila -- http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ceila30