What I learned from "Star Talk with Neil deGrasse Tyson"

[Hop David]

And I did screw up on croft, but you were the one that added the term "catastrophic".

Croft? You mean Cook?

Yes, it was me who noted Cook's oft cited 97% conclusion didn't include the word "catastrophic".

But that didn't stop you from jumping to the conclusion that Cook's a denier. You spent about two pages confidently telling us Cook denied AGW and that he didn't know what he was talking about.

LPT: Actually read what someone says before you spend many paragraphs saying that person's an idiot. You have established that you are willing to state as fact things you know nothing about.

 

[We Never Know]

It appeared from your posts that you were. This is an ongoing tendency of yours. But if no sources are needed then we are fine.

Posting facts that some 150 lakes in the Tahoe Basin are still currently frozen in June is denial of AGW?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Croft? You mean Cook?

Yes, it was me who noted Cook's oft cited 97% conclusion didn't include the word "catastrophic".

But that didn't stop you from jumping to the conclusion that Cook's a denier. You spent about two pages confidently telling us Cook denied AGW and that he didn't know what he was talking about.

LPT: Actually read what someone says before you spend many paragraphs saying that person's an idiot. You have established that you are willing to state as fact things you know nothing about.

Sorry, my table has a feature called "autowrong". I don't always catch the changes it makes. It has a tendency to substitute words at random sometimes.

But yes, I did mess up on Cook. You messed up on the Greenhouse Effect. Your error was as bad as mine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Posting facts that some 150 lakes in the Tahoe Basin are still currently frozen in June is denial of AGW?

Yes, it is the sort of post a denier of AGW would make. It is akin to "it snowed yesterday, where is the global warming?" And since you are terribly wrong so often you really cannot afford the false facepalms.

 

[We Never Know]

Yes, it is the sort of post a denier of AGW would make. It is akin to "it snowed yesterday, where is the global warming?" And since you are terribly wrong so often you really cannot afford the false facepalms.

Doesn't AGW cause the weather/climate to sometimes swing wildly at times both ways, on the hot side and sometimes on the cold side? Why yes it does. Meaning those frozen lakes are easily a supporting argument for AWG.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Doesn't AGW cause the weather/climate to sometimes swing wildly at times both ways, on the hot side and sometimes on the cold side? Why yes it does. Meaning those frozen lakes are easily a supporting argument for AWG.

I see that you have no clue of what the arguments are as usual. No wonder that you are so confused.

 

[Hop David]

But yes, I did mess up on Cook.

Actually you did quite well. Without bothering to read John Cook's position you have repeatedly labeled him a denier. And since he's a denier he's not to be trusted.

You have established beyond a doubt a strong confirmation bias, dishonesty and a love for ad hominem.

You messed up on the Greenhouse Effect. Your error was as bad as mine.

You're aware that atmosphere thins exponentially with altitude? So effects of higher CO2 concentrations increase at most logarithmically. Clive Best talks about that here.

Some models seem to indicate doubling carbon dioxide would boost power by 3.7 watts per square meter. But there are variables. For example, will increased water vapor boost albedo?

There are a number of uncertainties with climate modeling. I would expect more than 99% of scientists would agree that human generated CO2 has contributed to global warming. However many pundits try to insert the word "catastrophic". I haven't seen 97% consensus that Human generated CO2 will cause all the major coastal cities to be flooded.

However given the data I believe it's a definite possibility. I would prefer to err on the side of caution. I advocate developing more solar and nuclear power sources as soon as possible. Also better insulating homes, etc.

Neil deGrasse Tyson suggests predictions of a submerged New York are just as solid as eclipse predictions. This is just false. You as well as Tyson label those having different opinions "deniers". You have spent many posts attempting to discredit John Cook by labeling him a denier. The use of ad hominem discredits you.

Folks like yourself are actually great ammunition for people who endorse carbon energy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually you did quite well. Without bothering to read John Cook's position you have repeatedly labeled him a denier. And since he's a denier he's not to be trusted.

You have established beyond a doubt a strong confirmation bias, dishonesty and a love for ad hominem.



You're aware that atmosphere thins exponentially with altitude? So effects of higher CO2 concentrations increase at most logarithmically. Clive Best talks about that here.

Some models seem to indicate doubling carbon dioxide would boost power by 3.7 watts per square meter. But there are variables. For example, will increased water vapor boost albedo?

There are a number of uncertainties with climate modeling. I would expect more than 99% of scientists would agree that human generated CO2 has contributed to global warming. However many pundits try to insert the word "catastrophic". I haven't seen 97% consensus that Human generated CO2 will cause all the major coastal cities to be flooded.

However given the data I believe it's a definite possibility. I would prefer to err on the side of caution. I advocate developing more solar and nuclear power sources as soon as possible. Also better insulating homes, etc.

Neil deGrasse Tyson suggests predictions of a submerged New York are just as solid as eclipse predictions. This is just false. You as well as Tyson label those having different opinions "deniers". You have spent many posts attempting to discredit John Cook by labeling him a denier. The use of ad hominem discredits you.

.

There is no point in going on since you screed up as well as I did. At least I admitted my error, you did not.

And no, Tyson's claims are correct. The problem is that deniers think that this will happen over night. The flooding of New York will take hundreds of years. Just as you got that wrong you probably do not understand why AGW will make low lying islands chains will be uninhabitable. Hint, it is not because they will be underwater, thought that is the common interpretation of those that do not understand the sciences.

As to Clive Best he is a denier that does not understand the science. Since you seem to like Sketpical Science here is an article on him:

How could global warming accelerate if CO2 is 'logarithmic'?


Let's not use false claims of ad hominem etc.. To reject AGW now one has to reject the sciences. There are very very few skeptics against AGW, those tend to be ignorant of the science behind the concept. Calling them deniers is not an ad hom.

 

[Hop David]

As to Clive Best he is a denier that does not understand the science.

Deja Vu ... You were saying John Cook's a denier therefore doesn't understand science.

Over and over again this name calling. And then you learned Cook's a passionate advocate of CAGW. Don't pretend that you studied Cook's position before you started hurling insults.

Stop the name calling. Rather than attack the messenger attack his arguments. Your name calling is ad hominem.

Freeman Dyson notes models of large chaotic systems are prone to error. And climate modelers like Tapio Schneider acknowledge climate model predictions are uncertain. See this article from the MIT Technology review.

Stop the name calling. And stop falsely claiming climate model predictions are certain. Shrill, dishonest people like yourself are helpful to proponents of carbon energy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Deja Vu ... You were saying John Cook's a denier therefore doesn't understand science.

Over and over again this name calling. And then you learned Cook's a passionate advocate of CAGW. Don't pretend that you studied Cook's position before you started hurling insults.

Stop the name calling. Rather than attack the messenger attack his arguments. Your name calling is ad hominem.

Freeman Dyson notes models of large chaotic systems are prone to error. And climate modelers like Tapio Schneider acknowledge climate model predictions are uncertain. See this article from the MIT Technology review.

Stop the name calling. And stop falsely claiming climate model predictions are certain. Shrill, dishonest people like yourself are helpful to proponents of carbon energy.

I thought that you liked that source which is why I used it. And if you understood what an ad hominme is you would see that is not the case. Right now you are the one running from the debate. If anyone is ad homing it is you here. You have lied by calling me "shrill" and "dishonest". When I made a mistake I admitted it. You didn't.

Can you make a clear statement and support it or do you have only generalities?

 

[Hop David]

Can you make a clear statement and support it or do you have only generalities?

That there are a wide range of climate predictions. Some models predict doubling CO2 would raise temperature 2 degrees celsius. Others predict 5 degrees celsius.

Again, see this article from the MIT technology review.

And for the record I agree with each the positions in the page you cited earlier. I agree there is human caused global warming. I agree that human caused global warming is potentially a very serious problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That there are a wide range of climate predictions. Some models predict doubling CO2 would raise temperature 2 degrees celsius. Others predict 5 degrees celsius.

Again, see this article from the MIT technology review.

And for the record I agree with each the positions in the page you cited earlier. I agree there is human caused global warming. I agree that human caused global warming is potentially a very serious problem.

Correct, there is a range. Though from my understanding climate change to date has been roughly in the middle of the most severe and the least. Also that article speaks of a possible more accurate model, but even that says they are waiting for more data on how clouds form in the tropics. Though to quote the article:

"Are things worse than predicted?
I think the evidence in recent years—for example, from studies looking at cloud variations over the past decades—points more toward higher climate sensitivity."

 

[Hop David]

Correct, there is a range.

Which is what I've been saying from the beginning. I have not given any wrong information.

You, on the other hand, shout DENIER! at anyone who you think disagrees with you.

You don't even have to read what they say. John Cook didn't include the word "catastrophic" in his 97% conclusion? DENIER!!!! Cook knows nothing about science! You don't have to read what anyone says.

We Never Know notes unusual weather. DENIER!!!!

And of course you're not a name caller.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which is what I've been saying from the beginning. I have not given any wrong information.

You, on the other hand, shout DENIER! at anyone who you think disagrees with you.

You don't even have to read what they say. John Cook didn't include the word "catastrophic" in his 97% conclusion? DENIER!!!! Cook knows nothing about science! You don't have to read what anyone says.

We Never Know notes unusual weather. DENIER!!!!

And of course you're not a name caller.

Now it is not an ad hom, but a name caller. Did you realize your error yet? Also quoting out of context is quote mining, usually done for a dishonest reason.

 

[Hop David]

Now it is not an ad hom, but a name caller. Did you realize your error yet?

Name calling, ad hominem, it's the same. Rather than address the arguments you attach the label "denier" to the person you disagree with. You don't even bother to read the argument before flinging insults.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Name calling, ad hominem, it's the same. Rather than address the arguments you attach the label "denier" to the person you disagree with. You don't even bother to read the argument before flinging insults.

No, an ad hominem is properly an attack that has nothing to do with the topic being debated. For example:

"You are ugly, therefore you are wrong".

This site lists quite a few examples. Technically calling someone that is anti-AGW a denier is a judgment call and not an ad hom.

Ad Hominem

 

[Hop David]

Technically calling someone that is anti-AGW a denier is a judgment call and not an ad hom.

You were trying to discredit John Cook by flinging insults. Without even bothering to read his position. A nice example of attacking the messenger rather than examining his arguments.

And I completely reject your accusation of quote mining. It's easy to go upthread and see that I am quoting you in context. I will link to some of your posts upthread:

Not if Cook denies the scientific consensus. It appears that Cook tried to make that claim, but his own paper refutes him. You do not seem to understand how citations work.

and

Cook tries to damn with faint praise. He does not accept the well accepted an well proven concept of AGW. He does get some things right. that was why he was quoted. When someone is incredibly wrong one of the best ways to put an article in place is to quote the parts of it that are correct and refute his general point. He tries to admit that most scientists accept AGW but then foolishly tries to deny it.

Again, any reader can click these links and examine the context of your posts for themselves. Quote mining my ***.

Also notice that you try to give the impression that you read Cook's position. Which is dishonest.

And then you learned that Cook shares your view that CAGW is a serious problem. He's on your side! Ooooops.

You've been busted. This thread is knee deep in your bull ****.