A conversation with Greenfyre. If you can call it that:)

I have been attempting to conduct a reasonable conversation at http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2010/11/20/the-1970s-ice-age-9-myth/

Frankly I think the guy has lost the plot.

Note how, at the first indication of a fact that contradicts his belief, he immediately goes off into an absurd ad hominem tirade and refuses to actually use any reason. The guy is as insecure as the master of the Titanic after the ship had hit the ice.

What do you think? Please comment below if you feel so inclined.

If you have trouble following the reference numbers, well, join the club.

If you see any scientific discussion by greenfyre in all of this, well, please draw that to my attention as well.

[…] Loses The Plot 20 11 2010 I’ve just been honored by Greenfyre dedicating his very first blog in a long time to a couple of blog posts in my very successful “1970s Global Cooling Consensus” […]

 —- Very nice … now how about you respond rationally to what was actually said? greenfyre on November 20, 2010 at 3:27 pm |

Reply Ian Forrester Omni…whatever it is, shows his true denier character and obvious lack of understanding of simple English. Here, Omni… I will explain it to you in simple English. No one was denying that the Earth was going through a cooling period mid century. Mitchell never claimed that we were heading into an imminent ice age. That is where you deniers confuse facts with your made up lies. Too bad that you are so selfish that you do not spend time undoing all the rubbish you have posted that is lapped up by other ignorant deniers. You are pathetic. on November 20, 2010 at 8:23 pm |

 Reply rogerthesurf

Funny, because I remember the ice age concern during the ’70′s. I dont refer to it as a panic because it wasn’t for most people, mainly because, unlike AGW, the common person was not being blamed for it. So why worry about something you can’t change?

However I remember the Time Magazine and/or National Geographic articles at the time, [1] and if you doubt there was a cooling, try looking at the Atlantic Ice records of the time. [2]

Check out this paper as well. http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/1974iceagereport.pdf [3]

Incidently your post lack credibility especially because you rely/resort on name calling and accuse people of lying etc. Its OK to have different beliefs and opinions, so in my view, if you want credibility, try sticking to the facts and logic. [4]

 Consensus does not prove anything, [5] there was once a consensus that the world was flat. [6]

What does matter that facts should be ascertained in a scientific logical manner. My main problem with what you call “the consensus” is that they rely on correlations and unproven hypothesis’ and present them as fact, or the next best thing.

If there was good evidence for AGW, well I would be right up there with you. [7]

 Another serious omission by the IPCC, is the economic cost to western countries of meeting their CO2 emission requirements and the cost of the wealth transfers. [8] As an economist, I can see with half an eye that these will destroy western economies which will result in poverty, deprivation and starvation. [9] First of all this issue should be analysed at length by the IPCC. It is not.

Secondly, if this is to be the cost of saving the planet, it is not unreasonable to demand a reasonable standard of proof that AGW is fact before we starve our families and children.

Cheers Roger http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com This conversation will also be published at http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com [10] for the benefit of my readers who will view your reply with interest.

—- —- [1] Pls actually read the article before pretending to comment on it: the whole thrust is that no matter how much media hype there was, it was still a fringe idea in the scientific world;

[2] no one contesting the 1940s to 1970s cooling, just as I state in the article (3rd section)

 [3] I should check out the report that I link and discuss in sec 2? How about you actually read the article

[4] The piece is packed with both facts and logic … how about you drop the ad hominem fallacy and respond to them with facts and logic? (which will require actually reading the post)

 [5] I didn’t claim that it did, what’s your point?

[6] There was never such a consensus of the scientific community so that would be a false analogy fallacy, and the learned classes (ie what might be considered a comparable group) did not believe that post 5th century BC.

 [7] Your unsubstantiated claims about the evidence are worth even less than an unproven hypothesis. Refute the evidence with peer reviewed science or accept it, but spare us vacuous claims.

 [8] How can it be an omission when that was not their mandate? Do you understand terms of reference? And what are you suggesting? that (by analogy) your Dr should only diagnose cancer if it is cheap to treat? Is this fallacious reasoning supposed to be an example of logic?

[9] If you were an economist you would understand that any analysis must examine and compare the costs and benefits of all options. Your advocacy for examining only costs and not the benefits of taking action, and completely ignoring the economic and social costs of AGW itself suggests you understand very little about economics.

 [10] Given the above, I seriously doubt that. and if my response seems brusque, let me suggest it is not half as rude or arrogant as someone who wastes other peoples time with uninformed comments without even bothering to read their work. You need to get up to speed on the basic facts of anthropogenic climate change science, basic logic, and simple good manners … you are seriously lacking in all three.

thank you greenfyre

PS the comments policy here is that we do not accept mindless reposting of arguments that have long since been shown to be false, frauds, and/or scientific twaddle, so do not waste my time with the kind of dreck that you fill your blog with … any 10 yr old with access to google can discover why those arguments are nonsense “Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says” on November 20, 2010 at 11:29 pm

| Reply Daniel Bailey

Thanks, greenfyre, for yet another excellent read. I made the mistake of visiting Morabito’s and rogerthesurf’s blogs for a few minutes (all I could do to endure the stupid for that long); ugh!…must..shower… I find it hard to believe that people smart enough to run a blog lack the intellectual chops to comprehend AGW. The only thing that makes any sense is that these people are either: 1. In serious intellectual denial 2. Intellectually dishonest Morabito I put in category 2, rogerthesurf in category 1. Thanks for all your do in combating the rising tide of denial. The Yooper on November 21, 2010 at 3:37 am

| Reply rogerthesurf

 “However I remember the Time Magazine and/or National Geographic articles at the time, [1] and if you doubt there was a cooling, try looking at the Atlantic Ice records of the time. [2]” “[1] Pls actually read the article before pretending to comment on it: the whole thrust is that no matter how much media hype there was, it was still a fringe idea in the scientific world; [2] no one contesting the 1940s to 1970s cooling, just as I state in the article (3rd section)” [1] & [2] are a comment on your title “The 1970s ‘Ice Age 9′ MythExcuse me for thinking that you were denying that the 1970′s Ice age fears ever existed. Perhaps you should review your title if you want readers to think differently.

 [1] “Check out this paper as well. http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/1974iceagereport.pdf [3] [3] I should check out the report that I link and discuss in sec 2? How about you actually read the article”

 I cant even find where you discuss that report in sec 2. Even when I am looking for it!

 [2] “Incidently your post lack credibility especially because you rely/resort on name calling and accuse people of lying etc. Its OK to have different beliefs and opinions, so in my view, if you want credibility, try sticking to the facts and logic. [4]

 “[4] The piece is packed with both facts and logic … how about you drop the ad hominem fallacy and respond to them with facts and logic? (which will require actually reading the post)”

This phrase definitely still holds because you are not discussing facts and logic especially in your answer which we are discussing now. The very fact that you call people who do not hold similar views to your own some sort of derogatory name (would you like me to list the number of times you do this in your blog) implies that you know your own logic is weak and you need to bluster to try and “win” your argument.

 [3] “Consensus does not prove anything, [5]” “[5] I didn’t claim that it did, what’s your point?”

 You mention the word “Consensus” 27 times in your blog so you must think it is an issue and your following statement implies that a consensus for AGW is important too. “OBVIOUS ALERT 2: We know that there is currently a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change thanks to the statements by all of the worlds important scientific organizations.” You are correct! “Consensus” does not mean anything in science INCLUDING anthropogenic climate change. If it does not carry any weight in your mind, why mention it?

 [4] “there was once a consensus that the world was flat. [6]” “[6] There was never such a consensus of the scientific community so that would be a false analogy fallacy, and the learned classes (ie what might be considered a comparable group) did not believe that post 5th century BC.”

I suggest you read the journal and commentaries of Christopher Columbus. The church was burning people even well past his day for suggesting that the world was anything but flat and therefore not the center of the universe. In those days the official “scientific” community was the church and they certainly enforced their “consensus”. (CC sailed in 1492 in case you have forgotten.)

 [5] “What does matter that facts should be ascertained in a scientific logical manner. My main problem with what you call “the consensus” is that they rely on correlations and unproven hypothesis’ and present them as fact, or the next best thing. If there was good evidence for AGW, well I would be right up there with you. [7]”

 “[7] Your unsubstantiated claims about the evidence are worth even less than an unproven hypothesis. Refute the evidence with peer reviewed science or accept it, but spare us vacuous claims.”

 Well there you are attacking the person again, instead of asking where I think the evidence is failing.

[6] If you have the time, I can show you exactly where the IPCC falls down and I have plenty of peer reviewed papers to support any avenue you may care to argue. [7]However the truth is that I do not have to prove anything [8], all I need do is to ask questions on key issues regarding AGW and search/wait for a logical answer [9].

 If the key issue cannot be satisfactorily supported, any sensible person will discard it as unproven or a fallacy. This is perfectly in line with proper scientific practice.

 “Another serious omission by the IPCC, is the economic cost to western countries of meeting their CO2 emission requirements and the cost of the wealth transfers. [8]

 [8] How can it be an omission when that was not their mandate? Do you understand terms of reference? And what are you suggesting? that (by analogy) your Dr should only diagnose cancer if it is cheap to treat? Is this fallacious reasoning supposed to be an example of logic?”

Of course it is the IPCC’s mandate to present all relevant issues on science as pertaining to climate change. Of course in my opinion they are failing on all counts. However if the cost of combating Global Warming is to bring starvation and impovershment to the western economies, how can you say that it is not worth a mention? This is a serious omission and consequently it cannot be possibly claimed that IPCC publications are in the least bit balanced. Although the cost may not effect the outcome, it quite reasonably demands a high standard of proof before we are commited to paying a cost of such magnitude.

[10] “the comments policy here is that we do not accept mindless reposting of arguments that have long since been shown to be false, frauds, and/or scientific twaddle, so do not waste my time with the kind of dreck that you fill your blog with … any 10 yr old with access to google can discover why those arguments are nonsense “Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says”

There you are blustering and attacking the person again. By the way Skeptical Science is well written and looks convincing at first, but with careful intelligent analysis it is easily seen (like the IPCC) relying on correlations and mathematical models which have the unproven “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis as a basic assumption. I must say in my discussions with them, they simply resorted, like you, to ad hominem remarks and could not tolerate my incisive comments on their web site. i.e. they used the ultimate weapon of the believer without facts by spamming my questions, which I admit were difficult answer seeing as how they questioned points where there are actually no facts to support them. [11]

 Cheers Roger http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

P.S. I hope this clears up your little misunderstanding so if you would like to discuss some real science and facts in a reasonable manner, I am quite happy to help you. [12] —–

 [1] Moving the goalposts fallacy – now try actually reading the article; NB This site is for adults who have the basic maturity to accept responsibility for what they actually said.

[2] My bad, I merely give the title and discuss the content. Somehow I failed to put in a header specifically pointing to it for people who are pretending to be discussing the content – now try actually reading the article;

 [3] Red herring fallacy, ad hominem fallacy. The post presents all the facts and logic (of course to know that you would have had to have actually read it) which you never addressed except with vacuous, irrelevant and inaccurate talking points. If and when you respond with relevant, documented facts I will address them appropriately. NB This site is for adults who have the basic maturity to speak rationally and to the point.

 [4] Red herring fallacy. Your conjectures about what I might think may be a topic to discuss with your therapist, but since I said no such thing in this post your alleged refutation is both a non sequitor and straw man fallacy as well.

 [5] When you are unable to refute the documented facts the adult thing to do is to admit it, not to try and bluff your way through. You are confusing the belief in a flat earth (which was not believed) with the question of heliocentricism.

 [6] Red Herring & straw man fallacy again. Noting and documenting that you made unsubstantiated, false claims is not an attack, it is merely a statement of fact.

[7] Then cite the relevant ones and spare us the juvenile bluster.

[8] Actually you do since you are the one making the claim.

[9] That particular sophistic technique is popularly known as JAQing off.

[10] In other words you concede that it was not their mandate. Your opinion of what their mandate should have been is not a valid criticism of the IPCC itself, and your repetition of unsubstantiated false claims is irrelevant.

 [11] More juvenile bluster and unsubstantiated, false claims. Irrelevant.

[12] There is no misunderstanding; you problem is that I understand you all too well. You have not once mentioned or referred to any science at all so how can there be a discussion? Further, you’re reliance on logical fallacies and shoddy thinking to try and disguise your lack of a rational argument is simply embarrassing. Try learning the basics of climate science and the simple technique of Constructing a Logical Argument before wasting any more of my time.

Thank you

greenfyre on November 21, 2010 at 6:34 pm

| Reply Same Ordinary Fool

Incidentally, Christopher Columbus was wrong. He based his voyage on a too-small estimate of the size of the earth. Those who argured against him used Eratoshenes’s (200 B.C.) surprisingly correct estimate. Columbus would have perished (not enough supplies) if he hadn’t discovered a New World halfway across. Skeptics want to think of themselves as being out in front of the science, with Galileo. When actually in their refusal to accept the latest science, they are on the side of the opposition to scientific progress. There have been attempts to control scientists, but they were never in control of ‘The Science’. The Catholic Church could harass Galileo, but not the scientist’s in northern Europe. Stalin & Lysenko. The Scopes monkey trial. George W. Bush bureaucrats changed wording in some climate papers. Currently there is talk by House Republicans of what they’ll do in 2011. The more obvious flat earth analogy would make Arrhenius the counterpart of Eratoshenes Eventually there was the accumulation of more and more data, on an increasing number of fronts, in support of CO2 climate change. Pivotal, for me, would be the fifties CO2 research leading to the development of heat sinking missiles. This should also be respected by skeptics, since nobody can doubt the intentions of the Department of Defense. Coupling this with a measure of the magnitude of the effect (despite its low concentration), in that CO2 is necessary to get the earth out of an ice age. Its my understanding that this is established climate science. That without CO2, the earth would be about 28oC colder, and would be a frozen snowball earth. (In an answer to a similar situation, Richard Lindzen, in his Nov 17 House testimony, said 2 1/2 oC?) Skeptics try to blow up a little (7 paper) interest in global cooling during a time of global cooling, when the real argument is the other-way-round. Concerns about CO2 global warming first developed before (say, 1950-1985) the globe started to warm. Climate research, and global temperatures, have increased ever since. Skeptic climate scientists aren’t in the avant garde. They’re rump conservatives arguing from yesterday’s positions. And dependent upon an ever increasing conspiracy theory. Neither I nor the IPCC are saying that the debate is 100% over. Personally, I’ll conflate this percentage with the ratio of publishing climate scientists: 97%. And suggest that climate skeptics should have a proportionate duty to be RESPONSIBLE, given the global consequences of being wrong. Time will tell. There’ll be no place for skeptics in a future of rising temperatures. They cannot continue like http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/ on November 21, 2010 at 7:14 pm |

Reply rogerthesurf

greenfyre, Im not going to even attempt to counter your, well, bluster.

[1] From your tirade it is difficult to find anything that approaches a logical argument.

 [2] All you have done is call anyone who disagrees with you derogatory names with insults and thereby excusing yourself of actually addressing the issue. However, you did state that you would like a good scientific question, (well at least I think thats what you say)

[3] so see if you can answer this one without resort to ad hominem attacks.

[4] Without claiming that correlations are sufficient, direct me to the evidence that gives reasonable empirical proof of the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis.

[5] Cheers Roger —

– [1] ad hominem fallacy … are you totally incapable of the simplest logical thought?

[2] Try reading it, see if that helps (and argument by dismissal fallacy). If it were true it would be easy to refute … you would not have to retreat into the playground tactics which you use.

 [3] No I didn’t. In fact I pointed out that your tactic of JaQing Off is a cheap rhetorical trick that frauds use and has no place in intelligent dialogue.

[4] Give even one specific example where I used an ad hominem (as you clearly do not even understand what an ad hominem is, I strongly advise reviewing the definition before you embarrass yourself again).

[5] Is your knowledge of basic science that out of date? Are you actually unaware that due to the Problem of Induction science has not accepted the concept of “proofs” for over half a century?

As for your ignorance about simple C02 science, I will draw to your attention to these new fangled things called “search engines” … ask any child 5 or older to explain them for you.

 Until then, I am happy to let you know that there have been significant advances in science since 1800 and you really should try to catch up. The basic CO2 science is almost 200 yrs old. The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, CO2 identified as one of the gases causing it by John Tyndall in 1859, and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. “The science behind a climate change headline” “The man who discovered greenhouse gases” “Global warming: blast from the past” Climate Change — isn’t it natural?

Sense from Deniers on CO2? *

 Don’t hold your breath…. How CO2 matters *

What is the evidence that CO2 is causing global warming? *

Just in case there are any doubts about anthropogenic influence in atmospheric CO2 *

Does CO2 correlate with temperature? *

The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps *

 Yet more CO2 *

A role for atmospheric CO2 in preindustrial climate forcing *

Calculating the greenhouse effect Of Upward Slopes and Isotopes Of Upward Slopes and Isotopes*

 (2) Again, learn the simple basics of climate science and the basic technique of Constructing a Logical Argument before wasting any more of my time.

 PS I see your dishonesty includes lying about this exchange on other blogs. on November 21, 2010 at 9:07 pm

nb the phrases marked * were links to other blogs in the original including one of greenfyres!  The links seem to have been lost during the cut and paste. Refer to greenfyres blog if you are interested. Roger

 | Reply Ian Forrester

 RTS, you should have given up half way through your first post, then people would just think that you didn’t know much about science. Instead, you continued for another 2 and one half posts which showed that you are not only ignorant about science but you are ideologically motivated for your nonsense about AGW. Why do you persist in showing how much of a dishonest, arrogant and selfish person you are?

AGW is happening, science shows it. Here is a simple empirical proof for you;

1. It has been known and shown experimentally for over 100 years that the radiative properties of CO2 make it a green house gas.

2. It has been empirically shown that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere, thus increasing the green house effect (causing the Earth to be warmer that it was before the increase).

 3. It has been empirically shown by carbon isotope fingerprinting that a large part of the increase is from the burning of fossil fuels. Putting these three empirically derived findings together and any intelligent and scientifically literate person can see that AGW has been empirically proven.

Now, are you going to admit at last that you can trust the scientists with their results or are you going to continue to show that you lack simple intelligence, are scientifically illiterate as well as being arrogant and selfish as previously noted?

on November 21, 2010 at 9:59 pm |

 Reply Sailrick

rogerthesurf “I dont refer to it as a panic because it wasn’t for most people, mainly because, unlike AGW, the common person was not being blamed for it. So why worry about something you can’t change?”

 Global warming has been consensus for 20 years, after decades of intense research by thousands of scientists. How does that compare with a small number of scientists hypothesizing about cooling?

AGW is a theory, after extremely rigorous peer review. The cooling idea was merely a hypothesis.

No one is blaming the common person. Thats just right wing talk show talking point nonsense. You know, the usual fear mongering.

That’s something Sarah Palin would say, and probably has. Alerting people, that energy and resource usages are going to have to change if the earth is to sustain us, is not blaming anyone. I understand that it may feel like that to some people. Calls to watch your carbon footprint seem invasive maybe. But if you want to see invasive government actions, wait too long to mitigate emissions, deforestation etc. After a few decades more of doing nothing, last ditch desperate efforts will be mandated. Marshall law will be common worldwide. By then it will be obvious that we should have acted even before now.

 Be careful what you ask for. How about responsibility, a favorite attribute for conservatives. We are all responsible for our actions. Actions have consequences. Those powerful forces who seek to confuse Americans about global warming for the sake of power and economic interests, and to continue on our business as usual path? Them I blame.

 It would be a lot easier for people to accept things like watching their carbon footprint, when our government and economy has gotten on board with clean energy and climate change mitigation. – improved grid, more choices of efficient transportation, better energy efficiency, making fossil fuel prices reflect something a little closer to reality, etc.

Don’t forget, fossil fuels not only have huge externalized costs, they are also subsidized at twice as much as renewable energy in the U.S. Fossil fuels can only get more expensive. Clean energy will get less expensive.

And since the cooling idea was based on human emitted aerosols as a forcing, and since AGW is based on human emitted GHG as a forcing, in both cases there is something we could do about it. In fact, we did do something about aerosols, though the motivation was acid rain and smog, not global cooling. And look! It didn’t hurt too much did it? Notice how much cleaner urban air is? Less acid rain? We cut back on CFCs and the ozone layer improved. And guess what? We did both of them with cap and trade. (not that I think it’s the best formula for carbon pricing – I like the Clear Act idea of tax and dividend to the public. The majority of revenue from the carbon tax would go to the public, with some for developing renewable energy) A certain amount of warming is already guranteed at this point. Managing to adapt to even that much warming will be no easy task. Gambling on more is like playing Russian Roulette with a revolver with only one empty cylinder. [1] —- [1] At least we’re hoping one of the cylinders is empty on November 22, 2010 at 1:17 am |

 Reply Daniel Bailey

 I see RTS proved me half-right…Should have added a 3rd category: Intellectually Challenged (i.e., Logic-Fail). The Yooper on November 22, 2010 at 3:21 am |

 Reply rogerthesurf

Greenfyre,

Well actually I was expecting you to supply some proper academic papers, definitely not a link to your own blog or anyone elses for that matter. Blogs may offer opinion but definitely not hard evidence. I’m sure you have hundreds of academic papers that you have read, surely you can choose at least one which gives reasonable empirical proof of the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis.

 “Give even one specific example where I used an ad hominem”

OK Its quite a list I am afraid.

The word “Denier” appears 48 times in your post although some of that number can be attributed to your like minded friends.

The word “lie” appears 5 times.

 The word “Denialosphere” appears twice.

The word “Myth” appears 25 times.

“Warmist” appears 1 time.

“You need to get up to speed on the basic facts of anthropogenic climate change science, basic logic, and simple good manners … you are seriously lacking in all three.” (By the way you should try looking at yourself a little harder on that one:))

“accept mindless reposting of arguments that have long since been shown to be false, frauds, and/or scientific twaddle”

“so do not waste my time with the kind of dreck that you fill your blog with ”

 “This site is for adults who have the basic maturity to speak rationally and to the point” “a non sequitor and straw man fallacy ” Interesting that one. Are you by any chance a member of the Davies Memorial Unitarian Universalist Church?

“adult thing to do is to admit it, not to try and bluff your way through”

 “Red Herring & straw man fallacy again. Noting and documenting that you made unsubstantiated, false claims is not an attack, it is merely a statement of fact.”

“spare us the juvenile bluster”

 “That particular sophistic technique is popularly known as JAQing off.” Interesting because I have no idea what you were refering to with that one.:)

“reliance on logical fallacies and shoddy thinking to try and disguise your lack of a rational argument is simply embarrassing.”

 “are you totally incapable of the simplest logical thought?”

 Etc. Etc.

I looked up the definition of Ad Hominem for your benefit. This what I found.

 “An ad hominem (Latin: “to the man”), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, “Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent’s personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent’s arguments or assertions.”

 So I seriously suggest that you clean up your blog and try discussing with reasoning.

Considering your heavy usage of Ad Hominems I think it would be reasonable to state,without being guilty myself, that you simply are unable to hold a discussion about anything on which you hold contrary opinions and you are resorting to personal attacks to hide your state of knowledge.

Now don’t forget the academic papers requested above.

Cheers Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

 

 

Some months later ………..

 

If you are so sure of yourself and your “facts” why dont you simply publish all these comments that you disagree with and answer them rationally?

Cheers

Roger

—-

i) I do as time permits, but particularly pointless or idiotic ones are a very low priority;

ii) On what basis is it my responsibility to walk people through information an 8 yr old could find in 5 min on the web?

iii) If you are so sure of yourself and your “facts” why don’t you simply make rational points supported with evidence? Why is it someone elses’ responsibility to yet again demonstrate the juvenile errors and transparent frauds in your claims?

iv) It is not always easy to provide rational answers to completely irrational statements … see many of your own comments for examples.

 

I wonder if you would care to point out some good reasoning, fact full arguments and logic in YOUR posts and comments.

Set us an example maybe.

Cheers

Roger
—-

Try actually reading them, see if that help you

 

Oh I have read, and unless I am a moron, or illiterate I find
good reasoning, facts,  full arguments and logic conspicuously missing.

Furthermore, when a fact or question that is just a little difficult for you to answer rationally, or the answer/truth threatens you beliefs, you immediately brand it as being stupid or simply delete the comment.

Its great though really, because on my blog http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com your blog is held as an example of the alarmist religion, the proponents of which simply ignore any facts or arguments that contradict their “faith”, and if you are for real, you are undermining any credibility that AGW supporters still enjoy; If you are not for real, you are doing a great job showing the futility of the AGW religion.

Why don’t you quieten down, answer comments properly and with respect, and be prepared to seek the truth whether it agrees with you religion or not.

Cheers

Roger

 

The above was answered in minutes. I reproduce it below.

Oh I have read, and unless I am a moron, [1] or illiterate I find
good reasoning, facts, full arguments and logic conspicuously missing.

Furthermore, when a fact or question that is just a little difficult for you to answer rationally, or the answer/truth threatens you beliefs, you immediately brand it as being stupid or simply delete the comment. [2]

Its great though really, because on my blog your blog is held as an example of the alarmist religion, [3] the proponents of which simply ignore any facts or arguments that contradict their “faith”, and if you are for real, you are undermining any credibility that AGW supporters still enjoy; If you are not for real, you are doing a great job showing the futility of the AGW religion.

Why don’t you quieten down, answer comments properly and with respect, and be prepared to seek the truth whether it agrees with you religion or not. [4]

Cheers

Roger
—-

[1] You said it, I didn’t

[2] I guess the reason you can’t give an actual example would be because it’s never happened.

[3] No doubt it is, that is how Deniers try to get around responding rationally with facts. It’s called an ad hominem logic fail.

[4] I will if and when you ever make a rational, substantive comment that makes at least passing reference to reality with documented specifics. Your personal fantasies happen in a place the rest of us can’t reach or even understand.

Until you find some way to join reality, kindly spare us this vacuous drivel; you have documented beyond all doubt that you are only capable of projection & ranting. W’e’re convinced, no more evidence is required.

greenfyre

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

17 Responses to “A conversation with Greenfyre. If you can call it that:)”

  1. Pete_Ridley Says:

    CMB, I haven’t noticed you post any proof to support your opinion that “No, it is absolutely correct”. Perhaps you can do so, otherwise I’m afraid that your “You have no proof otherwise” sounds likme you are talking to yourself – the first sign, they say!

    Have a very happy Xmas everyone. All tjhe best for 2011.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

  2. cmb Says:

    “cmb, from your comment I suspect that you accept the claims of the UN, the IPCC, the WWF, etc. etc. etc. that there is widespread scientific belief in an upcoming climate catastrophe if we continue using fossil fuels to power our developing economies. That’s a myth too.”

    No, it is absolutely correct. You have no proof otherwise, which is probably why you submitted nothing but your own opinion.

  3. Pete_Ridley Says:

    cmb, from your comment I suspect that you accept the claims of the UN, the IPCC, the WWF, etc. etc. etc. that there is widespread scientific belief in an upcoming climate catastrophe if we continue using fossil fuels to power our developing economies. That’s a myth too. Most scientific papers provide evidence that we sceptics are correct in believing that the true position is that they really do not know what is going to happen and can only speculate about the causes and extent of changes the different global climates. They aren’t even sure of what changes will occur in global temperatures, a much simpler but still very complex task.

    Keep enjoying life. We will find that we can adapt to much of what nature decides to throw at us and continue to thrive, just as we have in the past.

    Don’t believe what politicians tell you and if you are puzzled about something they say then follow the money.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

  4. cmb Says:

    Those articles are pretty much the entire “myth.” Puff pieces in magazines. No such myth existed in scientific circles.

    You could find this out yourself in 5 minutes.

  5. cmb Says:

    There was no widespread scientific belief in an upcoming ice age in the 70s. It’s a myth.

    Can’t tell what all the rest of this crap is about, except the lies.

    • rogerthesurf Says:

      Well there was a concern about slipping back into an iceage in the ’70’s because I remember it. Articles in Time and National Geographic.
      You are right about the crap though. Greenfyre is so busy calling everyone names that the plot is completely lost

  6. Pete Ridley Says:

    Hi Roger, I was amused by Mike Kaulbars’ response to your comment (November 22, 2010 at 7:12 pm) on his “Dunce’s Corner” thread advising him of this article. He said “To your credit you seem to have copied the exchange verbatum, which is more than many Deniers would have done. I recognize and commend that”.

    Back in August (21st – 23rd) when Stewart Argo was moderating I complained on the “Lilly the Pink” thread about his double standards when deciding what to allow to be posted – one rule for disciples and another for sceptics. More recently (22nd Nov) I submitted a comment to the “The 1970s ‘Ice Age 9′ Myth” thread which asked Mike “Are you surprised that sceptics like me suspect that you are a hypocrite?”

    Of course, I can find no trace of my comment, so here’s what Mike (or Stewart) objected to

    QUOTE:

    Mike, you claimed on Desmogblog (http://www.desmogblog.com/lets-stop-lying-to-ourselves-and-fund-a-solution-to-global-warming – 2008-02-05 13:48) Let’s Stop Lying to Ourselves: While I agree with the general thesis I have to object to “Our efforts in our personal spaces are at the most symbolic.” While this is certainly true if personal efforts are limited to things like “driving less”, etc, it is also true that such minimal changes do not constitute “make every effort to reduce our carbon footprint”
    “Every effort” means every effort, real and meaningful action. Ditch the private automobile entirely, never use AC and drop the winter temp down to 15, eat 90% local and vegan, never fly, reduce all consumption of goods radically, etc. Really, actually, sincerely “make every effort to reduce our carbon footprint” and you will be making a real difference.
    These are just a few of the things I and people I know have done and continue doing. It’s shocking how little it affects quality of life. .… If you are reading this it is because you have access to a computer, and that means privilege. No matter how hard you are trying it is unlikely that any of you have a carbon footprint that is not at least 3 to 4 times what you have a right to, and in most cases it is likely to be much, much higher.

    How does that stand alongside the carbon footprint of you and your environmental/”peace” activist associates?
    You also give out the message that you wish people “peace” (e.g. see http://coat.ncf.ca/sylvia/Guestbook.htm) but do these good wishes only extend to fellow-believers?

    Are you surprised that sceptics like me suspect that you are a hypocrite?

    You are not averse to twisting the facts, are you? Here’s an example “A simple example is their claims of a global conspiracy of scientists. Yeah, right. Milllions of scientists from over a hundred nations are in on a conspiracy”. Naughty naughty Mike.

    You state “At every opportunity fight the injustice of climate change by calmly and rationally articulating your perspective. Nothing more is needed, but that much is critical”. What on earth does “ .. the injustice of climate change .. ” mean? The different global climates change – always have done and always will (till it all comes to an end). What has justice to do with it – it’s natural. Oh, I think I know what you are getting at. It’s the inequity of the impacts of these natural changes on the worlds life-forms that you are talking about. Well, that’s life, isn’t it!

    You have also said “The only way to reach the ‘unconverted’ in any meaningful way is through active means, talking to them directly one on one with their permission”. That doesn’t square with deleting the opinions of others if they conflict with your own!

    I recall you objecting to references to the climate change religion but you say “For all of us our most valuable resource to access the unconverted is our ‘congregation’,”. You accuse others of talking BS but as Mr Burns, the great Scottish rabbi, said:

    O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
    To see oursels as others see us
    It wad frae monie a blunder free us
    An’ foolish notion
    What airs in dress an’ gait wad lea’e us
    An’ ev’n Devotion”

    I’m sure that dear old Ian (Forrester) will appreciate that one.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley.

    PS:
    Translation from Scottish to English if required:

    Oh, that God would give us the very smallest of gifts
    To be able to see ourselves as others see us
    It would save us from many mistakes
    and foolish thoughts
    We would change the way we look and gesture
    and to how and what we apply our time and attention.

    Peace to you all!

    UNQUOTE.

    I leave it to others to judge whether or not Mike (and Stewart) give the impression of being hypocrites

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    • rogerthesurf Says:

      Pete,
      “eat 90% local and vegan, never fly, reduce all consumption of goods radically, etc. Really, actually, sincerely “make every effort to reduce our carbon footprint” and you will be making a real difference.”

      Sound like religious hippies to me. And I bet they will moan if the IPCC has its way and CO2 emission restrictions raise the price of energy esp petrol and diesel so its impossible to even maintain that 15deg. Actually as an economist I think petrol and diesel will go up at least 500%. Imagine what that will do to their food prices and other essentials. Like essential medicines etc.

      Cheers

      Roger

  7. Pete Ridley Says:

    I’ve had a quick look at those papers to which you linked and will read them more carefully, however, I’ll briefly mention Oeschger et al. 1992. In exchanges on Chris Colose’s “Richard Alley .. ” thread (http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/richard-alley-at-agu-2009-the-biggest-control-knob/) in January Chris claimed that Oeschger had refuted the concerns expressed in Jaworowski’s 1994 paper about the validity of reconstructions from ice cores. As I said then that Oeschger’s 1995 criticism of Dr. Jaworowski’s 1994 paper “Ancient Atmosphere – Validity of Ice Records” appears to me to have been simply defending his own faith in the ice core re-constructions instead of validating them.

    Professor Hartmut Frank, Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology, University of Bayreuth said in his supportive forward to Jaworowski’s paper “Every single parameter relevant to this suggestion must be carefully scrutinized …. We hope that the present article will induce a wider interest and discussion about the validity of the postulated CO2 increases and the ensuing global climate changes. This needs to be clarified beyond any doubt before legislative measures are taken which have potential similarly severe economic effects as an eventual global warming UNQUOTE. That statement is as valid today as it was then.

    The 1982 Oeschger paper mentions one of the first processes that can distort those reconstructions, atmospheric CO2 adsorbed during the formation of the snow in the atmosphere. Professor Frank said in a recent E-mail that “ .. a dm3 snow may contain a total carbon dioxide content of which 4 mg is adsorbed and 0.54 mg comes from the air between the snow flakes –explaining the high values found in ice cores by the gas extraction over long time in the molten state”. I have only recently started considering that process.

    Oeschger et al. say “The pore volume consists of channels which have multiple connections with each other. When the pore volume shrinks to about 10% of the total firn volume, the channels are pinched off and isolated bubbles are formed. If the air in the open pore space of firn is of atmospheric composition, we expect the air in newly formed bubbles to be of atmospheric composition also. Since gas diffusion through ice is very small, the composition of air occluded in these isolated bubbles essentially remains preserved. These considerations are only correct if no water is involved”. What they appear not to have considered is that atmospheric air comprises molecules of different gases with different molecular diameters.

    CO2 has a larger collision diameter than O2 or N2 but a smaller kinetic diameter so the question that I have is which of the two diameters is relevant here. Perhaps both are relevant but at different stages of firn compaction.

    This is what I am concentrating on at the moment and any help in the form of constructive criticism (take note of the word “constructive” Ian) would be appreciated.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

  8. Pete Ridley Says:

    Hi Roger, thanks for the response to my comment on your “Hasn’t anyone ever heard of the Medieval Warm Period?” thread. This is a more appropriate thread for my comments so I’ll pick up on it here. Meanwhile, I have just posted this comment to Mike Kaulbars’ “Dunce’s Acorner” thread (http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/dunces-corner-this-is-what-denierism-looks-like/#comment-9223) QUOTE:

    Stewart Argo (AKA S2), ref. your comment on November 24, 2010 at 5:18 pm, I repeat what I said on November 23, 2010 at 6:03 pm on this subject.

    You may be misinterpreting what you see in the stars. Are you sure that it isn’t Astrology that you are interested in rather than Astronomy.

    I have no idea who rogerfromnewzealand is but he has nothing to do with me. You see, unlike you, I do not try to hide behind a false name.

    If you or Mike persist in leaving my comments “on moderation” or removing parts that you don’t like then I shall post all recent ones and futures in full on Roger’s own blog (Roger willing) at http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com, on https://globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com/ and elsewhere. This will let as many people as possible know the extent to which you will go to censor sceptics, like other supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis. This comment has gone there and any censored ones will follow a similar journey unless you stop your attempts to silence those with whom you disagree. The ball is in your court now – remove the censorship of my comment or they go elsewhere.

    I see that Ian Forrester has been hurling his usual vindictive comments at Roger, as he does to anyone who dares to disagree with him, although I have never yet seen Ian make any worthwhile scientific contribution to the climate science debate. All that he seems capable of is hurling his insults then snaking off into the undergrowth. Ian needs to take a long break to collect his thoughts. Maybe a long spell of fishing or game-bird shooting with Canna and Islay would help.

    UNQUOTE.

    I’ll get back to you on your response as the boss has just called me.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    • rogerthesurf Says:

      You are very welcome Pete to post here as is anyone.

      I would also like to state for the benefit of all readers, that I never spam, delete or modify other peoples comments unless they contain obscenities or are obvious irrelevant spam.

      I can do this because I have nothing to hide and all my opinions can be backed up with proper literature, and/or logic and reasoning.

      Cheers

      Roger

  9. Ian Forrester Says:

    You are an idiot. Conversation closed just like your mind.

    • rogerthesurf Says:

      Ian,
      You seem to have caught the Greenfyre disease which is not admirable by anyones standards.
      Why don’t you calm down and be prepared to face some facts, even if they do disagree with your religion.

      I have issued you two invitations to do just that and all I get in return is abuse.
      Im sorry to tell you this but it does demonstrably appear that you have a problem.

      Cheers
      Roger

  10. Ian Forrester Says:

    RTS, you don’t know what a fact is. Hint, you won’t find them on denier web sites. Why don’t you offer some facts in rebuttal to my list of empirical proofs for AGW?

    Your comments are typical of lying, arrogant and illiterate political guttersnipes who wish a poorer future for our children while they waste our finite resources and pollute at will.

    You are pathetic. You call yourself an economist, do you have any idea what the future costs will be if we do what you and your denier friends wish? Ooops I forgot, you are so selfish you don’t care.

    • rogerthesurf Says:

      Ian,

      First of all you are not doing your “cause” any help at all by adopting the same stance as greenfyre. Any normal reader will assume you know nothing, cannot debate a proper point in any case and are using this blustering technique of yours in the place of facts and understanding.

      In fact that is exactly what I think as well.

      I invited you to review your comment with your claimed “empirical proof” and anticipated a sane conversation.
      How about you take my advice and we can try again.

      Cheers

      Roger

  11. rogerthesurf Says:

    Well Ian,

    If you really think such a ludicrous avoidance of discussing the real issues constitutes an authority and confirmation of the facts of AGW I really think you need to rethink your beliefs as well.

    It is patently obvious that greenfyre knows nothing about the facts when it comes to AGW and will do anything to avoid real discussion.

    I do understand his reluctance though, the fact is that there are no facts supporting AGW and therefore the only option is to attack the person.

    Very pathetic really in fact.

    I suggest you read the following link by that terrible denier Dr Richard Lindzen who will tell you the terrible “lies” which expose the lies that people have been deluding YOU with. http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/lindzen_testimony_11-17-2010.pdf
    Strangely enough, I came to very similar conclusions to his independently.

    Incidently, your claims of having empirical proof were so far out it was difficult to think of an answer.

    If you want to look up the definition of “empirical” and explain more fully here you are welcome, but try and be smarter than greenfyre and stick to the facts of the discussion.

    Cheers

    Roger

  12. Ian Forrester Says:

    Deniers and liars get in such a tizzy when they are called on them.

    You are pathetic.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: