Why Dr. Lindzen is mistaken re. CO2's 'climate sensitivity'

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

Why Dr. Lindzen is mistaken re. CO2's 'climate sensitivity'

Post by citizenschallenge » Tue Aug 07, 2012 5:05 pm

Richard Lindzen is a favorite of contrarian skeptics because he is one of the increasingly rare* bona fide climatologists who continues claiming that the general scientific understanding of Anthropogenic Global Warming, also referred to as the "consensus," is wrong.

But a close review of his claims have repeatedly revealed them to be demonstrably mistaken.
The folks at SkepticalScience.com have done a review of a recent talk he gave at Sandia National Laboratories as part of SNL's "Climate Change and National Security Speaker Series" which seeks to: "shed light on the wide spectrum of thought regarding the causes and extent of changes in Earth’s climate." In the talk he repeats his misconceptions and SkS has again taken the time to explain the reasons why Lindzen is mistaken.

Since, one of the vague claims made among a few folks here at SKEP centers around questions doubting the physics of atmospheric CO2, this seems like a timely review worth considering.


*Many consider such examples of extreme outliers as flukes that ought to be disregarding. Or at the very least they should be considered with extreme caution.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen ... rrors.html
. . .   As usual, Lindzen's talk centered around his favorite myth which we have debunked many, many times, starting with Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming.

It's easy to understand why Lindzen insists on repeating this myth, because it's the basis of his argument that climate sensitivity (the amount the global temperature will change in response to increasing CO2, including feedbacks) is low, which in turn is the lynchpin for all climate contrarianism.  However, despite its importance to Lindzen and his fellow climate contrarians, it is simple to show why Lindzen's "Earth should have warmed more" argument is wrong along every step of the way.
1. Lindzen claims "We’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing)."
In reality the net radiative forcing is most likely less than halfway to the equivalent of a doubling of CO2.

2. Lindzen claims "that [radiative forcing] has produced very little warming"
In reality
the amount of warming we've observed is consistent with a climate sensitivity in the range cited by the IPCC. 

3. Lindzen concludes that his argument proves climate sensitivity must be low.
In reality aside from Lindzen's arguments being wrong, the full body of evidence points to much higher climate sensitivity than Lindzen believes. 
{...}
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

Re: Why Dr. Lindzen is mistaken re. CO2's 'climate sensitivi

Post by citizenschallenge » Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:42 pm

In doing some more reading I found this interesting article that examines some of the complexities in compiling and processing temperature data.
Variable-Variability.blogspot.com
Thursday, 2 August 2012
A short introduction to the time of observation bias and its correction
Due to recent events, the time of observation bias in climatological temperature measurements has become a hot topic. What is it, why is it important, why should we and how can we correct for it? A short introduction.
{...}

Mean temperature

Time of observation bias (TOB)

Correction of the TOB

Homogenisation
In reading that article I once again find that the depth of the complexities scientists work with is amazing. It's why I find it easy to defer to the experts opinions - they just plain understand way the hell more details than we laypeople. Particularly if we are honest enough to admit scientific cross examination by knowledgeable peers is alive and well.
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Why Dr. Lindzen is mistaken re. CO2's 'climate sensitivi

Post by SweetPea » Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:40 am

Hello,
From your link.
I'm interested in finding out what this means to you, and why you believe it.
"the second-largest single radiative forcing (behind CO2) is most likely associated with aerosols, which have a strong net cooling effect ".

Terms such as "most likely", "associated with" maybe don't mean the same things to different people. What does it mean to you ? Normally I see such talk more like the form "X contributes P"
How much radiative force ?
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Why Dr. Lindzen is mistaken re. CO2's 'climate sensitivi

Post by SweetPea » Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:28 am

The IPCC chart shows Natural Forcings set as having only one member...solar.
Is that a useful way to consider what the total forcings are ? There is a technical definition, of course, which says "natural", is just more or less the usual ongoing forcings, a definition which puts volcanic eruption effects as not being in the set of "Natural" forcings. However, they also show only anthropogenic aerosols.

It seems they equivocated , sometimes using "natural" to mean "non anthro", but also using a definition of "natural" which means "what is normal and ongoing".
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

Re: Why Dr. Lindzen is mistaken re. CO2's 'climate sensitivi

Post by citizenschallenge » Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:24 pm

SweetPea wrote:The IPCC chart shows Natural Forcings set as having only one member...solar.
Is that a useful way to consider what the total forcings are ? There is a technical definition, of course, which says "natural", is just more or less the usual ongoing forcings, a definition which puts volcanic eruption effects as not being in the set of "Natural" forcings. However, they also show only anthropogenic aerosols.

It seems they equivocated , sometimes using "natural" to mean "non anthro", but also using a definition of "natural" which means "what is normal and ongoing".
You are misrepresenting what the IPCC says.

If you want to be taken seriously bring up some specifics, with references

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... CZq-0S-k-k
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Why Dr. Lindzen is mistaken re. CO2's 'climate sensitivi

Post by SweetPea » Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:35 pm

citizenschallenge wrote:
SweetPea wrote:The IPCC chart shows Natural Forcings set as having only one member...solar.
Is that a useful way to consider what the total forcings are ? There is a technical definition, of course, which says "natural", is just more or less the usual ongoing forcings, a definition which puts volcanic eruption effects as not being in the set of "Natural" forcings. However, they also show only anthropogenic aerosols.

It seems they equivocated , sometimes using "natural" to mean "non anthro", but also using a definition of "natural" which means "what is normal and ongoing".
You are misrepresenting what the IPCC says.

If you want to be taken seriously bring up some specifics, with references

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... CZq-0S-k-k
I'm using your link "In reality" :)
Please be specific on what I misrepresented or withdraw your remark.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen ... l#expected" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

Re: Why Dr. Lindzen is mistaken re. CO2's 'climate sensitivi

Post by citizenschallenge » Sun Aug 12, 2012 10:56 pm

SweetPea wrote:
citizenschallenge wrote:
SweetPea wrote:The IPCC chart shows Natural Forcings set as having only one member...solar.
Is that a useful way to consider what the total forcings are ? There is a technical definition, of course, which says "natural", is just more or less the usual ongoing forcings, a definition which puts volcanic eruption effects as not being in the set of "Natural" forcings. However, they also show only anthropogenic aerosols.

It seems they equivocated , sometimes using "natural" to mean "non anthro", but also using a definition of "natural" which means "what is normal and ongoing".
You are misrepresenting what the IPCC says.
If you want to be taken seriously bring up some specifics, with references
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... CZq-0S-k-k
I'm using your link "In reality" :)
Please be specific on what I misrepresented or withdraw your remark.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen ... l#expected" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Well, I'm not sure what you mean. OK at that post the first graph: "Figure 1: Global average radiative forcing in 2005 (best estimates and 5 to 95% uncertainty ranges) with respect to 1750. Source (IPCC AR4)." Shows solar as the only forcing in the "natural" category. I took your rambling comment to imply IPCC doesn't consider anything else. Sorry.

What I'm trying to point out is that the IPCC's review is much deeper and broader than contrarians dare admit. Sort of a not seeing the forest for the trees thing. Here why not try a quick review of this summation by the IPCC, you'll see it's obvious they are looking at every aspect they can think of.

http://www.ipcc.ch/presentations_and_sp ... CgwGkS-k-k

Climate Change 2007 Observations and Drivers of Climate Change.
or
The Physical Science Basis
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Why Dr. Lindzen is mistaken re. CO2's 'climate sensitivi

Post by xouper » Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:14 am

citizenschallenge wrote:Richard Lindzen is a favorite of contrarian skeptics because he is one of the increasingly rare* bona fide climatologists who continues claiming that the general scientific understanding of Anthropogenic Global Warming, also referred to as the "consensus," is wrong.

But a close review of his claims have repeatedly revealed them to be demonstrably mistaken.

The folks at SkepticalScience.com have done a review . . .
Sorry, but the folks at SkepticalScience are not climate scientists. You have argued several times on this forum that the opinions of non-climatologists can be dismissed. Therefore, by your own argument, we can dismiss the opinions of anyone at SkepticalScience.

User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

SkepticalScience.com

Post by citizenschallenge » Mon Aug 13, 2012 1:24 am

;) ;)
xouper wrote:
citizenschallenge wrote:Richard Lindzen is a favorite of contrarian skeptics because he is one of the increasingly rare* bona fide climatologists who continues claiming that the general scientific understanding of Anthropogenic Global Warming, also referred to as the "consensus," is wrong.

But a close review of his claims have repeatedly revealed them to be demonstrably mistaken.

The folks at SkepticalScience.com have done a review . . .
Sorry, but the folks at SkepticalScience are not climate scientists. You have argued several times on this forum that the opinions of non-climatologists can be dismissed. Therefore, by your own argument, we can dismiss the opinions of anyone at SkepticalScience.
And you keep willfully ignoring that SkepticalScience articles reference back to the actual science. All of their articles are packed with links to the actual science - Also their follow up comments section is filled with excellent equally informative discussion, including skeptics who keep on point. It's a place where learning can happen. What's wrong with that?


Denying SkepticalScience.com is the same as encouraging people to ignore the science.
And I thought you profess respect for learning about and understanding the science?

:|
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: SkepticalScience.com

Post by xouper » Mon Aug 13, 2012 1:45 am

citizenschallenge wrote:
xouper wrote:
citizenschallenge wrote:Richard Lindzen is a favorite of contrarian skeptics because he is one of the increasingly rare* bona fide climatologists who continues claiming that the general scientific understanding of Anthropogenic Global Warming, also referred to as the "consensus," is wrong.

But a close review of his claims have repeatedly revealed them to be demonstrably mistaken.

The folks at SkepticalScience.com have done a review . . .
Sorry, but the folks at SkepticalScience are not climate scientists. You have argued several times on this forum that the opinions of non-climatologists can be dismissed. Therefore, by your own argument, we can dismiss the opinions of anyone at SkepticalScience.
And you keep willfully ignoring that SkepticalScience articles reference back to the actual science.
Again you make the error of accusing me of ignoring them. I am not. And I am tired of having to correct you on this same error over and over and over. You sound like a {!#%@} broken record.

By the way, when quoting me, don't put links in my posts that I did not put there myself. That's totally dishonest. What the {!#%@} is the matter with you??
citizenschallenge wrote:All of their articles are packed with links to the actual science - Also their follow up comments section is filled with excellent equally informative discussion, including skeptics who keep on point. It's a place where learning can happen. What's wrong with that?
There's nothing wrong with it. What's wrong is when you criticize others for doing the same thing you do here, citing sources that are not climatologists.
citizenschallenge wrote:Denying SkepticalScience.com is the same as encouraging people to ignore the science.
Except I'm not denying it. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy in citing sources that are not climatologists and then you refuse to accept any sources that disagree with you if they are not from climatologists.

I have challenged you on this several times and yet you keep making the same error over and over and over. You sound like a {!#%@} broken record.
Last edited by xouper on Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Why Dr. Lindzen is mistaken re. CO2's 'climate sensitivi

Post by SweetPea » Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:16 am

citizenschallenge wrote:
SweetPea wrote:
citizenschallenge wrote:
SweetPea wrote:The IPCC chart shows Natural Forcings set as having only one member...solar.
Is that a useful way to consider what the total forcings are ? There is a technical definition, of course, which says "natural", is just more or less the usual ongoing forcings, a definition which puts volcanic eruption effects as not being in the set of "Natural" forcings. However, they also show only anthropogenic aerosols.

It seems they equivocated , sometimes using "natural" to mean "non anthro", but also using a definition of "natural" which means "what is normal and ongoing".
You are misrepresenting what the IPCC says.
If you want to be taken seriously bring up some specifics, with references
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... CZq-0S-k-k
I'm using your link "In reality" :)
Please be specific on what I misrepresented or withdraw your remark.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen ... l#expected" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Well, I'm not sure what you mean.
...OK ... Source (IPCC AR4). Shows solar as the only forcing in the "natural" category. I took your rambling comment to imply IPCC doesn't consider anything else. Sorry.
Thank you for admitting your error.

I urge you to find the official definitions and what they mean - or it means almost nothing. Unless,of course, you now believe that I summed it up perfectly. Then no need to.
What I'm trying to point out is that the IPCC's review is much deeper and broader than contrarians dare admit.
As
far as I can tell, what you complain about, that is not near what we've been talking about. You're just changing the topic to behaviour of people who you resent. They do not figure into the discussion right now and here.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

Re: SkepticalScience.com

Post by citizenschallenge » Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:37 pm

xouper wrote: There's nothing wrong with it. What's wrong is when you criticize others for doing the same thing you do here, citing sources that are not climatologists.
citizenschallenge wrote:Denying SkepticalScience.com is the same as encouraging people to ignore the science.
Except I'm not denying it. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy in citing sources that are not climatologists and then you refuse to accept any sources that disagree with you if they are not from climatologists.

I have challenged you on this several times and yet you keep making the same error over and over and over. You sound like a {!#%@} broken record.
Dear Xouper,
What's wrong with criticizing others who lie about what climatologists have been reporting.

Why do you always willfully ignore that little matter of presenting the science honestly?
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: SkepticalScience.com

Post by SweetPea » Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:45 pm

citizenschallenge wrote:
xouper wrote: There's nothing wrong with it. What's wrong is when you criticize others for doing the same thing you do here, citing sources that are not climatologists.
citizenschallenge wrote:Denying SkepticalScience.com is the same as encouraging people to ignore the science.
Except I'm not denying it. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy in citing sources that are not climatologists and then you refuse to accept any sources that disagree with you if they are not from climatologists.

I have challenged you on this several times and yet you keep making the same error over and over and over. You sound like a {!#%@} broken record.
Dear Xouper,
What's wrong with criticizing others who lie about what climatologists have been reporting.

Why do you always willfully ignore that little matter of presenting the science honestly?
You're apparently not comprehending the nature of the complaint against you.
The complaint is of hypocrisy.
If opponents' non climatologist sources are continually downgraded as being from someone "not a climatologist", even if a Nobel winning physicist or highly regarded statistician, then your non climatologist sources fit the very same category. Yet you splash them all over without caveat and accuse people of ignoring them, and by extension, "the science". They are not "the science". They are non climatologists with viewpoints.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: SkepticalScience.com

Post by xouper » Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:33 pm

citizenschallenge wrote:
xouper wrote: There's nothing wrong with it. What's wrong is when you criticize others for doing the same thing you do here, citing sources that are not climatologists.
citizenschallenge wrote:Denying SkepticalScience.com is the same as encouraging people to ignore the science.
Except I'm not denying it. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy in citing sources that are not climatologists and then you refuse to accept any sources that disagree with you if they are not from climatologists.

I have challenged you on this several times and yet you keep making the same error over and over and over. You sound like a {!#%@} broken record.
Dear Xouper,
What's wrong with criticizing others who lie about what climatologists have been reporting.

Why do you always willfully ignore that little matter of presenting the science honestly?
Here is yet more evidence of your failure to have even a basic comprehension of what I wrote.

For the Terminally Stoopid™, I did not complain about "criticizing others who lie about what climatologists have been reporting".

For the Terminally Stoopid™, I do not "willfully ignore that little matter of presenting the science honestly".

Such accusations are ridiculous and Stoopid.

User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

Re: SkepticalScience.com

Post by citizenschallenge » Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:13 am

xouper wrote:Except I'm not denying it. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy in citing sources that are not climatologists and then you refuse to accept any sources that disagree with you if they are not from climatologists.
Perhaps you're suffering from a "failure to have even a basic comprehension of what I wrote."

If what I'm disagreeing with is sources that do lie and that do misrepresent the information and that do replace political/economic considerations for honestly evaluating the known evidence...
... well, that stuff needs to be tackled hard.


PS
Still waiting for you to bring up serious science sources big guy,
source that have legitimate scientific complaints {mind you it is 2012}.
Not nitpicking and crazy-making about inconsequential minute details that belong with the experts anyways and have little impact on the reality of the situation we are facing. ;)
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: SkepticalScience.com

Post by xouper » Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:33 am

citizenschallenge wrote:
xouper wrote:Except I'm not denying it. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy in citing sources that are not climatologists and then you refuse to accept any sources that disagree with you if they are not from climatologists.
Perhaps you're suffering from a "failure to have even a basic comprehension of what I wrote."
That's always a possibility. But in this case. Not.
citizenschallenge wrote:If what I'm disagreeing with is sources that do lie and that do misrepresent the information and that do replace political/economic considerations for honestly evaluating the known evidence... well, that stuff needs to be tackled hard.
Stop changing the topic. My argument was about your hypocrisy in dismissing sources that are not climate scientists. Your latest comments are not relevant to that argument.
citizenschallenge wrote:PS
Still waiting for you to bring up serious science sources big guy,
source that have legitimate scientific complaints {mind you it is 2012}.
Not nitpicking and crazy-making about inconsequential minute details that belong with the experts anyways and have little impact on the reality of the situation we are facing. ;)
Again you reveal your faulty memory. I have in fact brought up some serious science when it was a part of my argument.

In the meantime, it is legitimate on a forum for critical thinking and skepticism to challenge your faulty arguments. If that bothers you, then go find a forum where the moderators will protect you from those who practice critical thinking.

In fact, if you yourself would focus only on the science, I would not have as much to say. So, we have yet another double standard on your part. You want me to focus on the science and ignore your rhetorical fallacies, but you want the freedom to discuss other things apart from the science. What a {!#%@} hypocrite.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: SkepticalScience.com

Post by SweetPea » Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:51 am

citizenschallenge wrote:
xouper wrote:Except I'm not denying it. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy in citing sources that are not climatologists and then you refuse to accept any sources that disagree with you if they are not from climatologists.
Perhaps you're suffering from a "failure to have even a basic comprehension of what I wrote."

If what I'm disagreeing with is sources that do lie and that do misrepresent the information and that do replace political/economic considerations for honestly evaluating the known evidence...
... well, that stuff needs to be tackled hard.
again, not responding to what was written, but instead picking an entirely different topic to insert. The topic is sources that are Climatologists vs sources that are not Climatologists, and your statements against other peoples' sources as not being Climatologists - all the while having exactly the same kind of source, that is, a non Climatologist source, yourself.
It's got a name,which is "hypocrisy", whether or not you realize it.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Why Dr. Lindzen is mistaken re. CO2's 'climate sensitivi

Post by SweetPea » Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:34 am

Edited version

citizenschallenge,
I believe I have detected your problem in thinking. maybe this literary device will help - we can take it away from a sensitive subject so you can get understanding of it.

Stan and Eddie and Lucy go fruit picking
Stan and Eddie and Lucy all feel that cherries are preferred, but apples will do sometimes.
They start to pick. Stan gets insulting and warns and Eddie or Lucy every time one of them picks an apple. Stan warns that it is certainly no cherry.
Stan also picks apples and says nothing about it, except for declaring loudly and often what wonderful fruit he's picking.

Eddie and Lucy get tired of the double standard, and complain to Stan. They say he's being hypocritical

Stan retorts that he's against BAD fruit ([sarc]so of course that's why Eddie and Lucy are being criticized for picking apples[/sarc]) .

Stan then whines that no intelligent and honest person wants BAD fruit, so what's with the spurious complaints ?
The fruit picking party returns one member short. Guess why.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

Re: SkepticalScience.com

Post by citizenschallenge » Sun Aug 19, 2012 2:06 am

xouper wrote:
citizenschallenge wrote:If what I'm disagreeing with is sources that do lie and that do misrepresent the information and that do replace political/economic considerations for honestly evaluating the known evidence... well, that stuff needs to be tackled hard.
Stop changing the topic. My argument was about your hypocrisy in dismissing sources that are not climate scientists. Your latest comments are not relevant to that argument.
Bull Poopie!
That is exactly the point!

When you bring up non climate scientists that misrepresent and lie about the science, that's worth bitching about.
When you make claims and don't support them with sources - as the folks at SkepticalScience, and Peter Sinclair, {and myself incidentally} and others you love attacking consistently do... well, that's bull poopie too.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

That sweetpea character's a heck of an example, talk, talk, talk and more talk, but where's the science, where's the discussion of real stuff?
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: SkepticalScience.com

Post by SweetPea » Sun Aug 19, 2012 4:03 am

citizenschallenge wrote:
xouper wrote:
citizenschallenge wrote:If what I'm disagreeing with is sources that do lie and that do misrepresent the information and that do replace political/economic considerations for honestly evaluating the known evidence... well, that stuff needs to be tackled hard.
Stop changing the topic. My argument was about your hypocrisy in dismissing sources that are not climate scientists. Your latest comments are not relevant to that argument.
Bull Poopie!
That is exactly the point!

When you bring up non climate scientists that misrepresent and lie about the science, that's worth bitching about.
but that's not what you were bitching about and not what people are telling you about. You were putting up a caveat because they were not climate scientists.
Then you change the supposed basis for your caveat from what you said to something else. You now say it was about those who "misrepresent and lie".

No,it was not that. Your caveat was that they are not climate scientists. A physicist and a meteorologist


See my story where Stan complains about Ed and Lucy picking apples while he himself picks apples. When confronted, he claims he is against bad fruit. But he had been complaining about Ed and Lucy picking apples, not bad fruit. He's such a blowtard he can't even understand what the complaint of hypocrisy relates to.
Last edited by SweetPea on Sun Aug 19, 2012 6:13 am, edited 4 times in total.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: SkepticalScience.com

Post by xouper » Sun Aug 19, 2012 4:13 am

citizenschallenge wrote:
xouper wrote:
citizenschallenge wrote:If what I'm disagreeing with is sources that do lie and that do misrepresent the information and that do replace political/economic considerations for honestly evaluating the known evidence... well, that stuff needs to be tackled hard.
Stop changing the topic. My argument was about your hypocrisy in dismissing sources that are not climate scientists. Your latest comments are not relevant to that argument.
Bull Poopie!
That is exactly the point!

When you bring up non climate scientists that misrepresent and lie about the science, that's worth bitching about.
When you make claims and don't support them with sources - as the folks at SkepticalScience, and Peter Sinclair, {and myself incidentally} and others you love attacking consistently do... well, that's bull poopie too.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

That sweetpea character's a heck of an example, talk, talk, talk and more talk, but where's the science, where's the discussion of real stuff?
This is another fine example of how your intellectual incompetence causes you to offer flawed arguments in defense of what is clearly hypocritical behavior on your part.

FACT: You have cited non-scientists as sources and you have complained when others do the same.

That is the very definition of hypocritical behavior on your part and nothing you have said above refutes that fact. Wave your arms all you want in a lame attempt at misdirection, but the fact remains, your behavior is hypocritical. And the evidence is also clear you are too Stoopid to see that.
citizenschallenge wrote:When you make claims and don't support them with sources . . .
Which is not very often. I have supported my claims with valid sources when it is necessary to do so.

User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

Re: SkepticalScience.com

Post by citizenschallenge » Sun Aug 19, 2012 4:54 pm

xouper wrote: FACT: You have cited non-scientists as sources and you have complained when others do the same.
FACT: When non-scientists misrepresent and lie about what climatologists are learning and saying -
I will complain - and attempt to set the record straight.
With links to the science and with references to science reporters who reference the science.
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: SkepticalScience.com

Post by SweetPea » Sun Aug 19, 2012 8:31 pm

citizenschallenge wrote:
xouper wrote: FACT: You have cited non-scientists as sources and you have complained when others do the same.
FACT: When non-scientists misrepresent and lie about what climatologists are learning and saying -
I will complain - and attempt to set the record straight.
With links to the science and with references to science reporters who reference the science.
which has nothing to do with the complaint of hypocrisy for allowing yourself what you do not allow others.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: SkepticalScience.com

Post by xouper » Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:22 am

citizenschallenge wrote:
xouper wrote:FACT: You have cited non-scientists as sources and you have complained when others do the same.
FACT: When non-scientists misrepresent and lie about what climatologists are learning and saying -
I will complain - and attempt to set the record straight. With links to the science and with references to science reporters who reference the science.
I have no complaint that you do that. My complaint is that you do not allow others to do the same, thus the accusation of hypocrisy.