I wondered if CIDU Bill’s recent call for another discussion on Global Warming would start a new thread. Imagine my surprise to discover you’d gone back to this old thing. Thanks for giving me the chance to fill in some gaps I’d left behind.

Let’s start with, “…elsewhere I’d already pointed out that you were wrong about standards of testability, and you never responded to that”. When you wrote “elsewhere”, you really meant it (i.e. not in this thread). Fortunately, I still have the link to that “elsewhere” I believe you refer to (for those dropping in) CIDU Bill’s “Hey I’ve got a stunningly original idea for a cartoon…” thread).

I’ve gone over that thread Dave in Boston and all I could find were assertions, and contextomy from you. When one points out something is “wrong”, usually one offers evidence to support that position. Well? Without evidence, an assertion is just so much smoke. How does one respond to smoke?

Here’s my evidence. In line 24 of this thread I called for a Climate Change model that could be tested; a standard request in science. Your reply was, “No, because if such a model is produced, there’ll just be a different song. Same as when the deniers could no longer claim with a straight face that there was no warming.” So, no published testable AGW model then.

In that other thread, you asserted the following, “….according to what you seem to believe, all of astrophysics (for example) is pure conjecture. The Big Bang theory? The island-universe hypothesis? Pure speculation.” A nice example of contextomy, for those who are still with us.

In this thread (line 34) you asserted that I was “claiming that climate change isn’t a theory” [true – if you mean AGW as there is no published model - ipso facto], but I was “now willing to call the Big Bang a theory”. Hmmm. When did I not refer to the Big Bang as a theory?

So, what make the Big Bang a theory and AGW an assertion? Well, facts, for a start. Okay, both have that – though some of the AGW “facts” are now subject to dispute [see MrKenneth’s link at line 34]. But facts are just that, facts. We need a model that explains what they mean. That get’s the Big Bang to the hypothesis stage. One up for BB vs. AGW, but not yet a theory. Ah, but the Big Bang hypothesis does make verifiable predictions using Albert Einstein’s General Relativity theory (a tiny beginning, expanding matter, red shift [for the far away stuff] ect.). This makes the Big Bang a theory and as each prediction comes true – and is verified independently – (there have been many) the theory gains credence and becomes accepted, until something better comes along. None of this is “speculation” Dave in Boston.

Now, where’s that testable AGW model again?

Other than that, this would require combing through a lot of stuff you’ve posted just to find the list of things you’ve claimed (let alone check them) — this takes time, and that kind of time doesn’t appear to be forthcoming for me or anyone else.

Especially since it seems unlikely that you’d change your opinion.

On editors… you might have used emacs; emacs originated as a set of TECO macros. You probably didn’t use vi; if you did you’d probably have been driven crazy by all the screen update bugs it had in those days and you’d remember.

I’m not old enough to have used punched cards in anger, only paper tape.

I was prepared to let this thread end with Winter Wallaby’s rather gracious final post. (I mean that seriously, WW)

However, Dave in Boston, I have learned something new from you, and that makes me glad. I love learning new things.

For example, I have never heard the term “emacs” before and, because I am curious, I looked it up. You know, I used to do programming (FORTRAN 4.0) a long time ago and I’ve probably used an emacs text editor without realising it. All I knew was the joy of leaving punch cards behind. Ever play 52 (hundred) card pick-up with a stack of unbounded punch cards? (I tease a bit here, as I’ve never really had more than a few hundred or so cards in a stack.) I’ve done programming on screen Winter Wallaby, so I’ve probably inadvertently used vi as well. Who knew!

Now to the positive side. I do not claim to be infallible, Dave in Boston. So, if you can show me where I’ve posted something that is incorrect please point it out. Arvy did so earlier, (about sea ice) and I was pleased to acknowledge the fact. He also provided a very interesting link to Dr. Peter Noerdlinger’s site, which I found fascinating and enlightening.

I do ask that you don’t go back to my “implied, no snow” comment. As I subsequently stated, that was the impression I got from Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” video. He never said, “it will never snow again, ever”, and neither did I, but his extensive references to much greater temperatures seemed to give me (and apparently others given the comic coverage Cidu Bill has presented) the impression that that was what he was implying. I don’t accept what Al Gore said or implied in his video so I do not believe there will be no snow, ever in the current circumstances.

That could lead to something else, but first the corrections. Lead on McDuff or rather Lay on McDuff, just to be exact.

All right, now I’m done.

Anyway. I hear emacs is a good text editor…

Yes there is ‘evidence’ that the climate is changing, but I find it rather questionable that everyone ignores the fact that there have been much warmer and much colder trends in recent geologic history, even in the much shorter human history…
We are a relatively new addition to the mix, and despite all the screaming to ’save the planet’ what we do won’t ‘Save’ or ‘Doom\ the planet, the planet will be here, we may not, and maybe we aren’t supposed to be….

Good gracious. Aren’t you ever curious? I mean, curious enough to look up words you don’t understand. You clearly don’t understand the word, “Imply”.

From The online Merriam-Webster dictionary: Imply: 2. to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement; 3. to contain potentially; 4. to express indirectly. A dictionary. Try it sometime.

In any case, I was discussing “perceptions” (look it up) obtained from viewing Al Gore’s video and what I thought that video “implied”. You kinda dropped that part in your repeated straw man, didn’t you. I think Al Gore’s video is a farce. So your assertion that I think, “there will be no snow, anywhere, ever”, is a logical fallacy derived from your own twisting of words. They’re your words, you defend them.

You also engage in “contextomy”, defined as “The practice of quoting out of context”

“Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms. As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute. As an appeal to authority it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position”

If the shoe fits.

Yes, do go and enjoy the comics. I do. But may I gently suggest you work to develop your reading comprehension, so that you can better understand the ideas and meaning behind the words rather than cherry-pick the ones you think you can attack. Where is the learning in that?

Nice straw man. Now, how did you get to “no snow, anywhere ever” from “implies no snow”? . . .Neither did I say the ability to predict averages equates to the ability to predict a specific result, another straw man. So, what exactly does tearing these straw men down prove?

I’m not trying to create straw men. I’m just reading your comments. I don’t see how your statement that

For most of us, hotter means weather like Southern California, Mexico, Florida and the like. . . In my view, and apparently many others, that implies no snow.

can be interpreted as anything other than a statement that you, Detcord, are going to view every instance of snow (”Wow, snow on the East Coast in winter!”) as a disconfirmation of global warming. As for the averages, you keep stating that a prediction that the average temperature will rise (which, in the context of climate change, means averaged over the world, and over yearly fluctuations) implies an ability to predict the weather in a specific season in a specific part of the world, or the average temperature in a specific year. I’m not sure how many ways people can explain to you that this is based on a poor understanding of average.

Oh, and I do recall asking for an average temperature prediction for 2010 like, now, so that we can get a feel for how accurate the 2030 or 2100 prediction might be (by comparing the prediction to the actual result). Note the like-for-like comparison, again

Yes, except no scientist predicts the averages temperature for 2030 meaning “This is exactly what the space-averaged temperature will be in the year 2030.” It’s understood that they mean averaged over yearly fluctuations.

I think this conversation is pretty pointless. The arguments you’re making aren’t subtle, debatable, scientific issues, they’re simply flat-out wrong, in pretty straightforward ways. I’m going to go look at the comics now. Or maybe argue about Sarah Palin. . .

Also, you won’t know this, so I’ll tell you now. I have never seen Fox News. I miss a lot of other TV shows too because I refuse to own a television. Biggest time-waster money can buy.

So, my views and opinions are not influenced by that medium, or any other single source. I do use the internet to facilitate a broader, more eclectic, approach to my fact-gathering because I recognise that truth has many facets – and no one publication has a monopoly on the facts.

I think your point about my, “not answering the question”, is disingenuous at best. I attempt to focus on the most salient points and try not to go over the same ground twice. I cannot answer all questions, and I can’t see why you are complaining. You don’t answer my questions either. You just dismiss them as misdirection.

I don’t know you Aaron. I only know what you’ve posted. From what you’ve written I can state, with absolute certainty, that you do not know me. So stop putting words into my mouth. I can do that very well all by myself.

I also pay all my taxes. Every last one – in 2 countries. Try it sometime.

Strawman. Your post suggests you do not understand the term. That’s how I read it. So here’s a very short primer.

a. You build up (or define) a position;
b. you assign it to someone else, and then, because you built it with flaws,
c. you easily tear it down.

That’s the modern essence of a strawman. It is a fallacious argument. Please stop doing it.

Also, I am stunned to read that you do not understand the difference between Global Warming (GW) and Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). The two are not the same and the key is that clever word, anthropogenic – i.e. human-caused.

Now Global Warming (and Cooling) has occurred on this planet a vast number of times over eons (according to theory) and virtually all of them have occurred before humans even existed. The last Global Warming event occurred about 10,000 years ago. I am sure you are aware of this and agree that humans cannot be blamed for that event. So, now you see the difference, yes?

If we, as human beings, intend to interfere with the climate, then we had darn well better know what we are doing. THAT is the point I have repeatedly been making. I have heard such ideas as putting up shields in space to block the Sun; or carbon sequestration in the oceans, dragging CO2 to the bottom of the sea, in order to avoid the AGW catastrophe. In the latter case, 50% of our oxygen comes from phytoplankton converting dissolved CO2 and sunlight into sugars and Oxygen that we and the rest of animal life breathe. They are one of the bedrocks of life on Earth.

All we need is some idiot to do this sequestration, and have it go wrong (when has THAT ever happened in human history) and virtually starve these creatures by taking away their food source (and our oxygen) and you really will see 6 billion people die.

This post is already too long, and I don’t want to annoy Cidu Bill any more than I may have. So I apologise for not answering all your points, but I believe what I have written has covered the main points of discussion. One request. Please no more strawmen. I can take you much more seriously if you exclude them.