Topic: This should give FirstAscent a stroke... - page 9. (Read 7367 times)

Only?

If it comes down to that, I feel I could I could discredit the sources frequently cited here by the libertarians far better than others could discredit the sources I might cite. Do we need to go through this all again? Frederick Seitz, Richard Lindzen, The Oregon Petition, The George C. Marshall Institute, The Heartland Institute, Exxon/Mobil funding, Environment and Climate News, etc.

Then follows the ugly deflections from the libertarian crowd. Sun cycles. Iceberg water displacement. Classification of CO2, The Little Ice Age...

Then follows the ignorance of: Earth's orbital patterns, Milankovich cycles, axis wobble, glacier calving, water volumes based on heat...

Then follows the failed acknowledgement of the potential dangers of a wait and see attitude.

Then follows the lies and propaganda to create the sense that scientists aren't in general agreement, where such lies are funded by Exxon/Mobil.

The information is out there. Do you think the libertarian think tanks are genuinely interested in sharing such information?

You can have a fundamental understanding of climate science if you want. Nothing is stopping you. Why would one only choose to source their data from libertarian think tanks?

You "don't see any value" in "having a discussion with someone such as me." Yet you are having a discussion with someone such as myself... in fact, me. You never specified having a discussion about climate science, you simply said discussion. So if there is no value in the discussion, and you keep expending time on the discussion (and time is the most scarce resource, we all have a limited amount of it, and we don't even know how much), then you must value your time very little.

I do see value in this conversation... entertainment. that's why I keep doing this, because it amuses me. I suppose that means I'm trolling you. Really, though, you're trolling yourself, because I would more than gladly discuss the paper with you, but you refuse, and consistently deflect the conversation into well... this. So, if you are content to self-troll, I will continue to derive enjoyment from it.

  I will not attempt to intervene, if you continue to play right into his hands.

I keep doing it? In fact, I am not doing it. I am very clearly not having a discussion with you about climate science, due to your extreme opinions and lack of knowledge.  What I am doing is having a discussion about the pointlessness of having said conversation with you. I did not state I was short of time (a failed assumption on your part).

Do you have any knowledge that is not spoon fed to you from your most trusted sources?  Everyone has a bias, there is simply too much information for us to individually sort through the raw data to come to our own conclusions, so we all locate sources that we believe that we can trust; and we favor information that is filtered by those same sources.  It's also entirely logical that we gravitate towards sources that seem to confirm our early presumptions.  You do it, I do it, and Myrkul does it.  Thus, it's entirely consistent that Myrkul would rank the information and conclusions of an esteemed peer (Stefan Molyneux) as well as another ideological peer with another concentration (Watts) above the common noise.  It still does not address the conclusions of the paper, which can be completely off base even using correct data.  Personally, I'm inclined to believe that AGW is true, but not to the degree that it deserves a concerted & global response.  

While you are not obligated to play his game, at least be honest about why you don't desire to play.  Trying to deflect fault upon libertarians because you believe us to be incorrect simply appears childish; which, I believe, was really Myrkul's goal in the start. I doubt he ever had any real belief that you would bother to read the article at all.

EDIT:  BTW, Myrkul.  It appears obvious to me that you posted this primarily to elicit an emotional response from FirstAscent, simply because he holds a different worldview than yourself.  By my own definition, that's 'trolling'.

And yet, you keep doing it... What does that say about how much you value your time?

Your opinions have been duly noted, Mister "I think I actually know something about climate science because I get my info from libertarian bloggers". And you have my permission to laugh all night long if it makes you happy.

I personally don't see any value in even having a discussion with someone such as you who is simultaneously extremely opinionated about a subject and extremely ignorant of said subject at the same time.

First off, the thread was about the paper. You reacted in a predictable manner to the paper, which is what the title and the last line in the OP were about.

Secondly, You need to learn the difference between "can't" and "won't". I won't address the requests you've made, because they're unrelated to the paper, and at least one of them is based on a fallacy.

If you want to make this thread about your reaction to the paper, you can, but then I'll just be laughing at you even harder than I already am. If you wish to address the paper, you can. Or we can watch you flail some more.

I laugh when statist refer to state funded sources as neutral.

You have made a thread, specifically about my reaction to some paper. The funniest part about it is your complete lack of demonstrable knowledge about the topic at hand. To boot, you can't address the three requests I've made, despite the fact that you have demand things of me in the past.

Do you have any knowledge about this subject that isn't spoon fed to you from your favorite libertarian sites?

lol... Pretty much exactly what I predicted. FirstAscent immediately went into "dodge and deflect" mode, and refuses to address the paper in the article, ignoring any data which does not support his world view. Three fallacious arguments - including a particularly egregious tu quoque - later, he has conceded defeat.

Thanks for the show, FirstAscent, it was quite amusing.

I've never clicked on those fallacy links, just for your future reference.

Anyway, please address the following:

1. Do you hold what Stefan Molyneux says in high regard? Do you think Stefan Molyneux has a valid point in the section of the clip I linked to? If so, then your previous request of me is null and void. If not, then can we decide that Stefan Molyneux is in general not worth listening to, and by extension, most all of your ideas and beliefs regarding your views on politics.

2. Explain your understanding of the cause for ice ages, as I have indications from another recent thread in which you have participated in that you're relatively misinformed and devoid of much knowledge in that domain.

3. Summarize the findings of the paper you have cited, as I have, at your various requests in the past, summarized edge effects, trophic cascades, island biogeography, the value of biodiversity to humanity, and ecosystem services.

Ah. So, basically, Your logical fallacy is... (particularly stupid, since I'm not even the one you're accusing of committing a fallacy)

And, three strikes, you're out. Thanks for playing.

Do you hold what Stefan Molyneux says in high regard? Do you think Stefan Molyneux has a valid point in the section of the clip I linked to? If so, then your previous request of me is null and void. If not, then can we decide that Stefan Molyneux is in general not worth listening to, and by extension, most all of your ideas and beliefs regarding your views on politics.

How am I being contradictory by calling you on a genetic fallacy?

Because you're being contradictory, and your side holds no water until you fix that.

In fact, I'll require the following from you before we continue:

1. Reconcile your statement about the source vs. the data with Stefan's attitude about sources vs. data.

2. Explain your understanding of the cause for ice ages.

3. Summarize the findings of the paper you have cited, as I have, at your request, summarized edge effects, trophic cascades, island biogeography, the value of biodiversity to humanity, and ecosystem services.

The source is almost more important that the data.  You need to tackle bias first before I start seriously considering the evidence.   I am not going to start reviewing the data about gun control from the Brady Center before fully contemplating its source.  

I think the climate debate has been greatly overblown but I do think we are having an effect on the planet.  The amount is where I have not determined from available data.

Why should I? My name is not Stefan Molyneux. Please stop evading.