Zythryn Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 Topper, the term was used by Wiki. The link provided was to THEIR title which described the type of behavior seen at the website you provided.Now that I have answered, please answer my question. Would you care to discuss the statement I provided? Or would you rather discuss your original (it would be a short discussion, but hey, it is your choice). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topper Posted January 29, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 Topper, the term was used by Wiki. The link provided was to THEIR title which described the type of behavior seen at the website you provided.Now that I have answered, please answer my question. Would you care to discuss the statement I provided? Or would you rather discuss your original (it would be a short discussion, but hey, it is your choice). The term and link were used by CraigD (find here: http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/22419-petesplace-blog-other-global-warming-skepticism.html#post291193), Wiki tries to define all terms and they call "denialist" perjorative, don't you agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 So you really are not interested in debating AGW, you are interested in debating weather or not offense was given, where none was intended? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topper Posted January 29, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 You'd have to ask CraigD what he intended, I can only go by his post. Wiki called the term pejorative on his posted link. CraigD brought up ad-hominem arguments, not you or I. I can't read minds or foretell the future, I don't know if he will apologize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 So that would be a 'no' then.You refuse to discuss the topic YOU raised, with me, until you get an appoly from Craig for offense YOU took at his post, which was not an ad-hominen attack in the first place?Is your position that weak? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topper Posted January 29, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 ...Here is some questions raised by the methodology: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf This is a short video about the temperature record and interviews with the authors of the above citation: Global Warming: The Other Side - Segment 4 | KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA | Coleman's Corner Where may we debate this issue? CraigD has to make his own decisions, I can't decide for him. I don't think my position is weak, Have you checked out the accusations of changing the historic climate record? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 You are changing gears, again.I asked you what specific topic you would like to discuss. You responded:We could discuss these two hypotheses, anthropogenic CO2 is causing global warming and this global warming will be disastrous in the foreseeable future. When asked if you would agree to change the wording, you responded that you would rather not.So I asked if you REALLY wanted to discuss your original phrasing, to which you suddenly changed topic once again. So let me ask you, do you really want to discuss the facts and the theories, or would you rather discuss mud slinging and name calling? I don't know that your position is weak, because you won't tell us what it is based on?Perhaps you could tell us in your own words what you think the AGW position is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topper Posted January 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 ...You refuse to discuss the topic YOU raised, with me, until you get an appoly from Craig for offense YOU took at his post, which was not an ad-hominen attack in the first place?... This isn't a private conversation, CraigD called my citation: “global warming denial” and was thanked by Buffy, Chacmool, freeztar, Moontanman and Turtle. If perjorative (admitted by his own citation) attacks and accusations of "endorsements of well-know ad-hominem attacks on AGW" are norms for this forum, then why do you think this is a civil discussion? http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/22419-petesplace-blog-other-global-warming-skepticism.html#post291193 I didn't raise the topic until after I asked for a reply to CraigD's post. I posted on the Hypography Climate Change Evidence forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maikeru Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 So that would be a 'no' then.You refuse to discuss the topic YOU raised, with me, until you get an appoly from Craig for offense YOU took at his post, which was not an ad-hominen attack in the first place?Is your position that weak? Topper's writing style reminds me of someone... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topper Posted January 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 ...'anthropogenic emmision of CO2 ... a increasing trend in the global average temperature'? Trend, what's the trend here? A trend is a very problematic thing. Your measurements, your start and end point, that's all you need for a trend. An increasing trend, what a coincidence, considering the average temperature can only do three things, increase, decrease or stay about the same. And an average temperature, how do you calculate that? Wouldn't you need a consistent array of "climate cells" and consistent measurement. An interesting point about average temperature measurements, the number and location of measuring stations varies over time, as does the temperature. In a sense, we find a moving average. If I shovel snow off my drive and a you row your boat to another tropic isle because of sea level rise, where even. I didn't see you out on the street with a broom, that doesn't entitle you to free passenger passage. You haven't won the lottery, there will be no large redistribution of wealth. Oil won't run out tomorrow and a catastrophic climate change calamity won't happen because of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Your "ncreasing trend in the global average temperature" is described quite well, in my second and third citations. I know you don't like stuff from conservative think tanks, but they did the work the peer wouldn't. They couldn't get published in peer reviewed journals because its not original work, it's a critique of observations made for measuring climate trends. It states the "increasing trend" is manipulated by the observers. What is the trend with pejorative characterizations on Hypography? Why all the thanks for a post that brings in ad-hominem characterizations? Seem extreme to you? Is there a trend to question, or to assume you have the answers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 Dear Topper/BrianG/Koogle, Your obnoxious antics here will no longer be tolerated. Your unjustified attacks on our members indicate that you have problems that we are unable to help you with. We don't really care what your opinions concerning climate change are, they're immaterial to the fact that you have a clear intent to harass and annoy all that disagree with you. This latest thread trying to accuse people of the nefarious use of a "pejorative term" is so transparent as to not even require a response, but since it clearly goes over your head, I'm forced to say so explicitly. Have a nice life...elsewhere. Against logic there is no armor like ignorance, :shrug:Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.