No one and nothing could ever pry Paul Alsing's hands off his Kool-Aid.

On 01/10/19 09:16, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 12:43:43 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/30/19 12:26 AM, Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 07:47:07 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/28/19 3:49 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 21:41:42 -0700, Snit
wrote:
You nominated NASA. You pick the supporting evidence.

So you have no claim you want looked at. Nothing you find questionable.
Fair enough.

As far as their sources, they are quite open about them. Check out this
page, for example:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Take the opening graph of CO2. No knowledgeable scientist would accept
that as data. I was going to ask you to tell me why, but I will help
you. The straight line to the 'current level' is from modern
instrumental data. The rest of it is from proxy data of some kind.

Combining data from multiple sources is common. Especially when dealing
with extremely long timescales. What would you suggest they do? Wait
200years and take equivalent ice cores then?

Instrument data should never be tacked on to proxy data like this. can
you tell me why?

False. It perhaps should made clearer, but not never.


His preference is we hand pick from one of the 70 or so scientists I
listed which deny the science, no matter how heavily debunked their
nonsense is, and believe them over the evidence that tens of thousands
of other scientists have largely agreed on.

Here is an interesting article from a David Middleton, a long
timepracticing geologist. I would be surprised if his name is on the
banned list. I bet it's too hard for you and you find an excuse to cop
out.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...ge-hypothesis/



This is an extreme denier website. No reputable scientist is going to
publish there. When he publishes in a reputable journal I'd read what he
had to say.

--
Un chien andalu-sia

Eric Stevens wrote:

chrisv wrote:

These right-wingers know *so* much more about this, than NASA's
scientists, you know.

Argument from authority. That makes you a scholar.

It's not reasonable to expect anyone to "prove the case" in a usenet
newsgroup. It's a classic right-wing propaganda tactic, to suggest
that we should be able to.

Sometimes it makes sense to trust the consensus of the experts. Take
a look around, at the recent FACTS regarding weather events, and
there's no reason to disbelieve what the experts are saying.

I can't be an expert on every fscking topic in the world, and the
typical stupid, selfish, ignorant, science-denying right-winger is
worse than I am!

Oh wait, that's right. They must lie their asses off, lest they lose
their jobs. (rolling eyes)

--
"People love to demonize McCarthy, but he did something which needed
to be done and which should have continued to this day." - "Slimer",
AKA "Rabid Robot", right-winger

On 10/1/19 1:16 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 12:43:43 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/30/19 12:26 AM, Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 07:47:07 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/28/19 3:49 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 21:41:42 -0700, Snit
wrote:
You nominated NASA. You pick the supporting evidence.

So you have no claim you want looked at. Nothing you find questionable.
Fair enough.

As far as their sources, they are quite open about them. Check out this
page, for example:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Take the opening graph of CO2. No knowledgeable scientist would accept
that as data. I was going to ask you to tell me why, but I will help
you. The straight line to the 'current level' is from modern
instrumental data. The rest of it is from proxy data of some kind.

Combining data from multiple sources is common. Especially when dealing
with extremely long timescales. What would you suggest they do? Wait
200years and take equivalent ice cores then?

Instrument data should never be tacked on to proxy data like this. can
you tell me why?

False. It perhaps should made clearer, but not never.


His preference is we hand pick from one of the 70 or so scientists I
listed which deny the science, no matter how heavily debunked their
nonsense is, and believe them over the evidence that tens of thousands
of other scientists have largely agreed on.

Here is an interesting article from a David Middleton, a long
timepracticing geologist. I would be surprised if his name is on the
banned list. I bet it's too hard for you and you find an excuse to cop
out.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...ge-hypothesis/

You said you were done replying to me. You lied. Not a surprise.

But now you run to WUWT, a blog pushing ANTI-SCIENCE.

Yeah, you are really amazing at picking winners. LOL!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F
-----
Watts Up With That? (WUWT) is a blog[1] promoting climate change
denial[7] that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006.[2][3]
-----

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/
-----
CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
....
Factual Reporting: LOW
....
Overall, we rate Watts Up with That a strong pseudoscience and
conspiracy website based on the promotion of consistent human influenced
climate denialism propaganda. (2/14/2017) Updated (D. Van Zandt 9/26/2019)
-----

https://skepticalscience.com/Anthony_Watts_blog.htm
-----
Climate Misinformation by Source: Anthony Watts

Anthony Watts is an American TV weather presenter and runs the blog
Watts Up With That. He founded surfacestations.org, which questions the
reliability of the surface temperature record. Typically more than half
of Watts' live presentations feature photos of poorly sited weather
stations.

However, the surface temperature record is one line of evidence among
thousands of lines of evidence for global warming. Ice sheets are
melting, sea levels are rising, glaciers are retreating, thousands of
species are migrating, seasons are shifting, local populations of
species are going extinct. As for the temperature record, warming is
also being observed over the ocean, well away from urban heat island and
microsite influences.

Lastly, satellite measurements independently find the same warming trend
as the surface record, leading prominent skeptic Roy Spencer (head of
the UAH satellite team) to conclude about the HadCRUT surface record,
"Frankly our data set agrees with his, so unless we are all making the
same mistake we're not likely to find out anything new from the data
anyway".

The full body of evidence presents a consistent and overwhelming picture
of global warming. Anthony Watts' critique of the surface temperature
record is an attempt to distract from this larger picture.
-----
Much more at the link.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts
-----
Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and
non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com.
He does not have a university qualification and has no climate
credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is
parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the
payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting
industries.[1]
-----

Before you said you went to original sources... but now all you can do
is find a whacko blog. LOL! Really, you are just funny!


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 07:02:10 -0500, chrisv
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

chrisv wrote:

These right-wingers know *so* much more about this, than NASA's
scientists, you know.

Argument from authority. That makes you a scholar.

It's not reasonable to expect anyone to "prove the case" in a usenet
newsgroup. It's a classic right-wing propaganda tactic, to suggest
that we should be able to.

I would never ask anyone to prove a scientific or technical matter. I
do ask people to not make unsupported claims, especially if they are
about a matter over which there is some dispute. Asking for supporting
data is not the same as asking for proof.

Sometimes it makes sense to trust the consensus of the experts. Take
a look around, at the recent FACTS regarding weather events, and
there's no reason to disbelieve what the experts are saying.

The trouble is that this can become a circular argument. You believe
so and so is an expert because he says what you believe to the case.
Then you find your belief is affirmed because people who you believe
to be experts tell you that such and such is the case. The only way to
avoid being trapped in such a loop is to ask why the expert believes
such and such. And, no; holding a belief because another 'expert' says
so is not sufficient.

I can't be an expert on every fscking topic in the world, and the
typical stupid, selfish, ignorant, science-denying right-winger is
worse than I am!

You should always receive information/opinions about those topics with
a grain of caution. The conclusions may or may not be correct.

Oh wait, that's right. They must lie their asses off, lest they lose
their jobs. (rolling eyes)

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

On 10/1/19 8:38 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 07:02:10 -0500, chrisv
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

chrisv wrote:

These right-wingers know *so* much more about this, than NASA's
scientists, you know.

Argument from authority. That makes you a scholar.

It's not reasonable to expect anyone to "prove the case" in a usenet
newsgroup. It's a classic right-wing propaganda tactic, to suggest
that we should be able to.

I would never ask anyone to prove a scientific or technical matter. I
do ask people to not make unsupported claims, especially if they are
about a matter over which there is some dispute. Asking for supporting
data is not the same as asking for proof.

There is "dispute" about everything, because some yahoo can deny
anything. People insist the Earth is flat, for example, or they deny
well accepted and supported climate science. They are, of course, being
deeply irrational.

You, for example, continually hand-pick the least reliable sources you
can to try to "back" your ignorance.

Sometimes it makes sense to trust the consensus of the experts. Take
a look around, at the recent FACTS regarding weather events, and
there's no reason to disbelieve what the experts are saying.

The trouble is that this can become a circular argument. You believe
so and so is an expert because he says what you believe to the case.

Nope. The vast majority of scientists believe the consensus BECAUSE of
the evidence, and the evidence is overwhelming. It is why those who deny
the science, such as yourself, feel the need to run to the same 70 or so
debunked deniers or non-scientific sites like WUWT. You have NOTHING to
back your denial.

But let us say you did. Say you were able to publish a paper that
explained the observations as well or better than the established
science but had a different conclusion. WOW! You would have fame and
fortune.

The incentive to do this is extreme. So why haven't you? Why hasn't anyone?

Then you find your belief is affirmed because people who you believe
to be experts tell you that such and such is the case. The only way to
avoid being trapped in such a loop is to ask why the expert believes
such and such. And, no; holding a belief because another 'expert' says
so is not sufficient.

The experts also agree the Earth is (mostly) spherical. You are trying
to pretend that we should deny it BECAUSE it is well backed. It is utter
rubbish.

I can't be an expert on every fscking topic in the world, and the
typical stupid, selfish, ignorant, science-denying right-winger is
worse than I am!

You should always receive information/opinions about those topics with
a grain of caution. The conclusions may or may not be correct.

You have spent time trying to find a counter. And failed. You resort to
going to the same list of 70 debunked deniers that other deniers go to.

You look at that hand-picked list and trust them over the tens of
thousands who peer review the science. You are being irrational.

Oh wait, that's right. They must lie their asses off, lest they lose
their jobs. (rolling eyes)



--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 2019-10-01 8:38 p.m., Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 07:02:10 -0500, chrisv
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

chrisv wrote:

These right-wingers know *so* much more about this, than NASA's
scientists, you know.

Argument from authority. That makes you a scholar.

It's not reasonable to expect anyone to "prove the case" in a usenet
newsgroup. It's a classic right-wing propaganda tactic, to suggest
that we should be able to.

I would never ask anyone to prove a scientific or technical matter. I
do ask people to not make unsupported claims, especially if they are
about a matter over which there is some dispute. Asking for supporting
data is not the same as asking for proof.

Sometimes it makes sense to trust the consensus of the experts. Take
a look around, at the recent FACTS regarding weather events, and
there's no reason to disbelieve what the experts are saying.

The trouble is that this can become a circular argument. You believe
so and so is an expert because he says what you believe to the case.
Then you find your belief is affirmed because people who you believe
to be experts tell you that such and such is the case. The only way to
avoid being trapped in such a loop is to ask why the expert believes
such and such. And, no; holding a belief because another 'expert' says
so is not sufficient.

I can't be an expert on every fscking topic in the world, and the
typical stupid, selfish, ignorant, science-denying right-winger is
worse than I am!

You should always receive information/opinions about those topics with
a grain of caution. The conclusions may or may not be correct.

Oh wait, that's right. They must lie their asses off, lest they lose
their jobs. (rolling eyes)

i prefer to do whatever the fk i please without any opinions so i do

On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 07:01:51 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 12:43:43 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/30/19 12:26 AM, Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 07:47:07 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/28/19 3:49 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 21:41:42 -0700, Snit
wrote:
You nominated NASA. You pick the supporting evidence.
So you have no claim you want looked at. Nothing you find questionable.
Fair enough.

As far as their sources, they are quite open about them. Check out this
page, for example:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Take the opening graph of CO2. No knowledgeable scientist would accept
that as data. I was going to ask you to tell me why, but I will help
you. The straight line to the 'current level' is from modern
instrumental data. The rest of it is from proxy data of some kind.
Combining data from multiple sources is common. Especially when dealing
with extremely long timescales. What would you suggest they do? Wait
200years and take equivalent ice cores then?

Instrument data should never be tacked on to proxy data like this. can
you tell me why?
False. It perhaps should made clearer, but not never.

His preference is we hand pick from one of the 70 or so scientists I
listed which deny the science, no matter how heavily debunked their
nonsense is, and believe them over the evidence that tens of thousands
of other scientists have largely agreed on.

Here is an interesting article from a David Middleton, a long
timepracticing geologist. I would be surprised if his name is on the
banned list. I bet it's too hard for you and you find an excuse to cop
out.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...ge-hypothesis/


But that's using a steady state analysis, as a reassurance
we won't have a problem caused by a *sharp transient*.

The melting tundra is going to increase the slope of the
pCO2. And make things worse. It's the transient behavior
we have to worry about, within (your) lifetime.

Not really. The mass flow of CO2 in the carbon cycle makes an
unusually large annual fire of no importance. Volcanoes fire out
irregular bursts of much larger quantities of CO2.

Imagine everyone in China and India, buys an air conditioner.
That's part of the reason China is estimating the construction
of fifty 4GB coal powered generating plants. And that, of course,
will have no impact at all.

It will, but not one I would worry about. After all, nature has
already absorbed an estimated 50% of the excess CO2 generated by man
in the last 50 years. Thats why the planet has greened by an estimated
14%~20% since the start of satellite monitoring.

Back in the eeoocene, there weren't 2 billion people buying
air conditioners.

The response of the humans, *accelerates* the pCO2 curve.
It's the near term result of that, which matters.

Are you arguing for some kind of spike response to a transient? I'm
not aware that there is room for such a thing in the current theories.

I don't really care that 10,000 years from now,
"everything is just peachy". What if in the process
of the transient behavior, humans are wiped out ?
Would you care ? Probably not. "I'll be dead by then,
so it won't matter."

If my house were to catch fire, I would sit in my
Lazy Boy in the living room, drink a beer, and
note that "it's only in the kitchen right now,
I have plenty of time". "It's only in the hall
right now, I still have time for another beer."
This seems a perfectly reasonable response to a fire.
What could go wrong ? "10,000 years from now, someone
will have built another house." If we pick our plot
points on the graph-of-life carefully, we can be
pretty smug about things.

Even if you don't know the actual details, examination of the history
of the earth will show that its environment is substantially
homeostatic.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 12:23:28 +0100, Lothar DeBaser
wrote:

On 01/10/19 09:16, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 12:43:43 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/30/19 12:26 AM, Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 07:47:07 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/28/19 3:49 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 21:41:42 -0700, Snit
wrote:
You nominated NASA. You pick the supporting evidence.

So you have no claim you want looked at. Nothing you find questionable.
Fair enough.

As far as their sources, they are quite open about them. Check out this
page, for example:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Take the opening graph of CO2. No knowledgeable scientist would accept
that as data. I was going to ask you to tell me why, but I will help
you. The straight line to the 'current level' is from modern
instrumental data. The rest of it is from proxy data of some kind.

Combining data from multiple sources is common. Especially when dealing
with extremely long timescales. What would you suggest they do? Wait
200years and take equivalent ice cores then?

Instrument data should never be tacked on to proxy data like this. can
you tell me why?

False. It perhaps should made clearer, but not never.


His preference is we hand pick from one of the 70 or so scientists I
listed which deny the science, no matter how heavily debunked their
nonsense is, and believe them over the evidence that tens of thousands
of other scientists have largely agreed on.

Here is an interesting article from a David Middleton, a long
timepracticing geologist. I would be surprised if his name is on the
banned list. I bet it's too hard for you and you find an excuse to cop
out.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...ge-hypothesis/



This is an extreme denier website. No reputable scientist is going to
publish there. When he publishes in a reputable journal I'd read what he
had to say.

You say it is a denier website because it publishes opinions contrary
to your beliefs. Therefore you do not read it. Therefore your beliefs
are not challenged. You are in fact tearing up the message because you
do not like the messenger.

If you do read a message on Watts Up With That, you should also read
the comments. They will very quickly tell you if anything is wrong
with the message. You don't get that on most sites.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

On 2019-10-01 8:47 p.m., Snit wrote:
On 10/1/19 8:38 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 07:02:10 -0500, chrisv
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

chrisv wrote:

These right-wingers know *so* much more about this, than NASA's
scientists, you know.

Argument from authority. That makes you a scholar.

It's not reasonable to expect anyone to "prove the case" in a usenet
newsgroup.Â* It's a classic right-wing propaganda tactic, to suggest
that we should be able to.

I would never ask anyone to prove a scientific or technical matter. I
do ask people to not make unsupported claims, especially if they are
about a matter over which there is some dispute. Asking for supporting
data is not the same as asking for proof.

There is "dispute" about everything, because some yahoo can deny
anything. People insist the Earth is flat, for example, or they deny
well accepted and supported climate science. They are, of course, being
deeply irrational.

You, for example, continually hand-pick the least reliable sources you
can to try to "back" your ignorance.

Sometimes it makes sense to trust the consensus of the experts.Â* Take
a look around, at the recent FACTS regarding weather events, and
there's no reason to disbelieve what the experts are saying.

The trouble is that this can become a circular argument. You believe
so and so is an expert because he says what you believe to the case.

Nope. The vast majority of scientists believe the consensus BECAUSE of
the evidence, and the evidence is overwhelming. It is why those who deny
the science, such as yourself, feel the need to run to the same 70 or so
debunked deniers or non-scientific sites like WUWT. You have NOTHING to
back your denial.

But let us say you did. Say you were able to publish a paper that
explained the observations as well or better than the established
science but had a different conclusion. WOW! You would have fame and
fortune.

The incentive to do this is extreme. So why haven't you? Why hasn't anyone?

Then you find your belief is affirmed because people who you believe
to be experts tell you that such and such is the case. The only way to
avoid being trapped in such a loop is to ask why the expert believes
such and such. And, no; holding a belief because another 'expert' says
so is not sufficient.

The experts also agree the Earth is (mostly) spherical. You are trying
to pretend that we should deny it BECAUSE it is well backed. It is utter
rubbish.

I can't be an expert on every fscking topic in the world, and the
typical stupid, selfish, ignorant, science-denying right-winger is
worse than I am!

You should always receive information/opinions about those topics with
a grain of caution. The conclusions may or may not be correct.

You have spent time trying to find a counter. And failed. You resort to
going to the same list of 70 debunked deniers that other deniers go to.

You look at that hand-picked list and trust them over the tens of
thousands who peer review the science. You are being irrational.

Oh wait, that's right.Â* They must lie their asses off, lest they lose
their jobs.Â* (rolling eyes)



you got eye rolled

On 10/1/19 8:56 PM, % wrote:
On 2019-10-01 8:47 p.m., Snit wrote:
On 10/1/19 8:38 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 07:02:10 -0500, chrisv
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

chrisv wrote:

These right-wingers know *so* much more about this, than NASA's
scientists, you know.

Argument from authority. That makes you a scholar.

It's not reasonable to expect anyone to "prove the case" in a usenet
newsgroup.Â* It's a classic right-wing propaganda tactic, to suggest
that we should be able to.

I would never ask anyone to prove a scientific or technical matter. I
do ask people to not make unsupported claims, especially if they are
about a matter over which there is some dispute. Asking for supporting
data is not the same as asking for proof.

There is "dispute" about everything, because some yahoo can deny
anything. People insist the Earth is flat, for example, or they deny
well accepted and supported climate science. They are, of course,
being deeply irrational.

You, for example, continually hand-pick the least reliable sources you
can to try to "back" your ignorance.

Sometimes it makes sense to trust the consensus of the experts.Â* Take
a look around, at the recent FACTS regarding weather events, and
there's no reason to disbelieve what the experts are saying.

The trouble is that this can become a circular argument. You believe
so and so is an expert because he says what you believe to the case.

Nope. The vast majority of scientists believe the consensus BECAUSE of
the evidence, and the evidence is overwhelming. It is why those who
deny the science, such as yourself, feel the need to run to the same
70 or so debunked deniers or non-scientific sites like WUWT. You have
NOTHING to back your denial.

But let us say you did. Say you were able to publish a paper that
explained the observations as well or better than the established
science but had a different conclusion. WOW! You would have fame and
fortune.

The incentive to do this is extreme. So why haven't you? Why hasn't
anyone?

Then you find your belief is affirmed because people who you believe
to be experts tell you that such and such is the case. The only way to
avoid being trapped in such a loop is to ask why the expert believes
such and such. And, no; holding a belief because another 'expert' says
so is not sufficient.

The experts also agree the Earth is (mostly) spherical. You are trying
to pretend that we should deny it BECAUSE it is well backed. It is
utter rubbish.

I can't be an expert on every fscking topic in the world, and the
typical stupid, selfish, ignorant, science-denying right-winger is
worse than I am!

You should always receive information/opinions about those topics with
a grain of caution. The conclusions may or may not be correct.

You have spent time trying to find a counter. And failed. You resort
to going to the same list of 70 debunked deniers that other deniers go
to.

You look at that hand-picked list and trust them over the tens of
thousands who peer review the science. You are being irrational.

Oh wait, that's right.Â* They must lie their asses off, lest they lose
their jobs.Â* (rolling eyes)



you got eye rolled

I prefer egg rolls.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 10/1/19 8:55 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 12:23:28 +0100, Lothar DeBaser
wrote:

On 01/10/19 09:16, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 12:43:43 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/30/19 12:26 AM, Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 07:47:07 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/28/19 3:49 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 21:41:42 -0700, Snit
wrote:
You nominated NASA. You pick the supporting evidence.

So you have no claim you want looked at. Nothing you find questionable.
Fair enough.

As far as their sources, they are quite open about them. Check out this
page, for example:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Take the opening graph of CO2. No knowledgeable scientist would accept
that as data. I was going to ask you to tell me why, but I will help
you. The straight line to the 'current level' is from modern
instrumental data. The rest of it is from proxy data of some kind.

Combining data from multiple sources is common. Especially when dealing
with extremely long timescales. What would you suggest they do? Wait
200years and take equivalent ice cores then?

Instrument data should never be tacked on to proxy data like this. can
you tell me why?

False. It perhaps should made clearer, but not never.


His preference is we hand pick from one of the 70 or so scientists I
listed which deny the science, no matter how heavily debunked their
nonsense is, and believe them over the evidence that tens of thousands
of other scientists have largely agreed on.

Here is an interesting article from a David Middleton, a long
timepracticing geologist. I would be surprised if his name is on the
banned list. I bet it's too hard for you and you find an excuse to cop
out.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...ge-hypothesis/



This is an extreme denier website. No reputable scientist is going to
publish there. When he publishes in a reputable journal I'd read what he
had to say.

You say it is a denier website because it publishes opinions contrary
to your beliefs.

Nope. I note it is a whacko site based on denying science because of the
EVIDENCE.

And I posted some of that evidence to you before.

See: you just reject evidence. You have nothing but the list of 70
scientists out of tens of thousands and some whacko sites.

Therefore you do not read it.

I did. And it was rubbish. As noted. I even went into some of its
errors, such as how it hand-picks data and ignores the larger picture.

Like you do.

Therefore your beliefs
are not challenged. You are in fact tearing up the message because you
do not like the messenger.

The fact you are an ignorant denier who is proud to know less than most
children does not mean I ignore all of your messages. I give you chance
after chance -- and am amused by you.

If you do read a message on Watts Up With That, you should also read
the comments. They will very quickly tell you if anything is wrong
with the message. You don't get that on most sites.

You pointed to a silly science denial blog and think it carries more
weight than peer reviewed journals. And then you ignore how your silly
site was debunked.

You are a walking warning about confirmation bias.


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 10/1/19 8:48 PM, % wrote:
On 2019-10-01 8:38 p.m., Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 07:02:10 -0500, chrisv
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

chrisv wrote:

These right-wingers know *so* much more about this, than NASA's
scientists, you know.

Argument from authority. That makes you a scholar.

It's not reasonable to expect anyone to "prove the case" in a usenet
newsgroup.Â* It's a classic right-wing propaganda tactic, to suggest
that we should be able to.

I would never ask anyone to prove a scientific or technical matter. I
do ask people to not make unsupported claims, especially if they are
about a matter over which there is some dispute. Asking for supporting
data is not the same as asking for proof.

Sometimes it makes sense to trust the consensus of the experts.Â* Take
a look around, at the recent FACTS regarding weather events, and
there's no reason to disbelieve what the experts are saying.

The trouble is that this can become a circular argument. You believe
so and so is an expert because he says what you believe to the case.
Then you find your belief is affirmed because people who you believe
to be experts tell you that such and such is the case. The only way to
avoid being trapped in such a loop is to ask why the expert believes
such and such. And, no; holding a belief because another 'expert' says
so is not sufficient.

I can't be an expert on every fscking topic in the world, and the
typical stupid, selfish, ignorant, science-denying right-winger is
worse than I am!

You should always receive information/opinions about those topics with
a grain of caution. The conclusions may or may not be correct.

Oh wait, that's right.Â* They must lie their asses off, lest they lose
their jobs.Â* (rolling eyes)

i prefer to do whatever the fk i please without any opinions so i do

I prefer to eat cheesecake.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

Eric Stevens wrote:

I would never ask anyone to prove a scientific or technical matter. I
do ask people to not make unsupported claims, (snipped, unread)

Global warming is not "unsupported".

Sheesh, you right-wingers are *amazing*.

Deny, deny, deny. "It's all a giant conspiracy. Let's F$CK over the
one and only planet, that we have."

Evil, selfish *******s. History will **** on your (our) legacy.

--
"you're changing your position and pretending that you knew." -
"Slimer", lying shamelessly

On 10/2/19 4:40 AM, chrisv wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:

I would never ask anyone to prove a scientific or technical matter. I
do ask people to not make unsupported claims, (snipped, unread)

Global warming is not "unsupported".

Sheesh, you right-wingers are *amazing*.

Deny, deny, deny. "It's all a giant conspiracy. Let's F$CK over the
one and only planet, that we have."

Evil, selfish *******s. History will **** on your (our) legacy.


Agreed. And keep in mind Eric Stevens has NOTHING to back his denial. If
he did he could write a paper and get fame and fortune. Instead, he
refers to whacko denial blogs and heavily refuted deniers from a list of
about 70. He ignores the tens of thousands of scientists who side with
the evidence and, more importantly, the evidence itself.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 2019-10-01 9:05 p.m., Snit wrote:
On 10/1/19 8:48 PM, % wrote:
On 2019-10-01 8:38 p.m., Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 07:02:10 -0500, chrisv
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

chrisv wrote:

These right-wingers know *so* much more about this, than NASA's
scientists, you know.

Argument from authority. That makes you a scholar.

It's not reasonable to expect anyone to "prove the case" in a usenet
newsgroup.Â* It's a classic right-wing propaganda tactic, to suggest
that we should be able to.

I would never ask anyone to prove a scientific or technical matter. I
do ask people to not make unsupported claims, especially if they are
about a matter over which there is some dispute. Asking for supporting
data is not the same as asking for proof.

Sometimes it makes sense to trust the consensus of the experts.Â* Take
a look around, at the recent FACTS regarding weather events, and
there's no reason to disbelieve what the experts are saying.

The trouble is that this can become a circular argument. You believe
so and so is an expert because he says what you believe to the case.
Then you find your belief is affirmed because people who you believe
to be experts tell you that such and such is the case. The only way to
avoid being trapped in such a loop is to ask why the expert believes
such and such. And, no; holding a belief because another 'expert' says
so is not sufficient.

I can't be an expert on every fscking topic in the world, and the
typical stupid, selfish, ignorant, science-denying right-winger is
worse than I am!

You should always receive information/opinions about those topics with
a grain of caution. The conclusions may or may not be correct.

Oh wait, that's right.Â* They must lie their asses off, lest they lose
their jobs.Â* (rolling eyes)

i prefer to do whatever the fk i please without any opinions so i do

I prefer to eat cheesecake.

i take that intravenously