Quote:
Originally Posted by Tichy
Edi's being extremely patient with you, licker.
He's not saying it, so I will. The way you're responding to him is impertinent.
You cite an article on a website affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute as if it's an unbiased source. Edi responds very carefully, with arguments directed to specific claims in that article. You then fail to respond to his substantive points and accuse him of unspecified "misconceptions." When he responds to that with a clarification, you make an end run around the substantive points *again* by falling back on hand-waving about the lack of a consensus.
Edi is clearly a more patient man than I.
I don't understand climate science -- I stopped responding to this thread because I realized I was out of my depth there -- but I do understand basically how arguments work (and standard tactics used to conceal when they're not working). If you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to do better than this.
|
Or perhaps he's not out of his depth as you admit to being.
Impertinent?
*chuckle*
Well when I have the time I will be happy to address his misconceptions, but as I said, I don't have the time right now to do it in detail, and so I'm not going to bother as I'm going to be away for 2 weeks anyway.
As to the article itself, perhaps people should be less concerned with the sources and more concerned with the actual data therein.
Tim Patterson is no oil company shill, do your own damn homework instead of just assuming everyone on the 'other side' is somehow a corrupt purveyor of lies.
Look at the other news I've posted about glaciers gaining mass and issues with the modeling of the famous hockey stick. Attack the data, not the source, though if you don't understand anything about climate science then I suppose you cannot attack the data, so while your opinion is certainly welcome, it's also rather meaningless no?
In anycase, I doubt edi needs anyones support to make his argument, if you agree with him good for you, even better if you actually can formulate technical reasons why you agree with him. This is part of the issue I have with the way the 'science' of AGW is presented. It is not done honestly by the IPCC, and most people are unable to access the real studies let alone have a background to interpret them.
So sure, we have to rely on scientists to make difficult things somewhat understandable, but that's not what we always get (with regard to the IPCC, its politicians, not scientists writing the summary report).
Anyway, I hope everyone has happy holidays and good travels (if you are traveling as I am).