Global Warming is over.

[rwh11385]

lol

predicted, and predictable

Classic George. Say that a post is hilarious but completely avoid responding to it.

Oh delicious, delicious irony.

Indeed. He has a pretty skewed view of the reality. The hypocrisy is vast with this one.

they close their eyes, ears and common sense to ANY opinion not supporting their narrow belief

[gwb72tii]

rwh, you're a bore
you have no better understanding of the science than me, herbal, cale etc
yet you position yourself as an expert
rofl

[BraveUlysses]

Yeah, rwh is the boring one who keeps repeating shitty fallacious arguments.

[rwh11385]

rwh, you're a bore
you have no better understanding of the science than me, herbal, cale etc
yet you position yourself as an expert
rofl

Classic George Move #2: Label someone who deals with data, facts, information, or the truth as a "bore". Instead of being capable of responding beyond fallacies, you attack the notion logic and reason as something somehow below you. Because you can't meet anyone in a rational discussion, you attempt to drag people down into your argument style.

Unlike you predicted, I didn't shoot down the ICEsat data - I asked if you cared to understand the differences in the estimates and why you thought it was justified that Anthony Watts believed that ICEsat information should be thought as disproving GRACE's. Ironically, you dismiss global warming data as inaccurate and poorly modeled, yet instantly accept as truth data that matches your goal conclusion. Again, the definition of confirmation bias.

I may not be a climatologist but I am a man of science. Your argument that because none of us you mentioned is an expert in climate change does not mean we all have to be ignorant fools who shouldn't be logical and can't base our non-expert opinions on facts at least. I may not be an expert and am not arguing as one, but as someone who is capable of critical thinking and being an independent thinker instead of someone who takes their party's conclusions as my own. Your entire argument is based upon Appeal to Authority of a tiny minority of "experts", and yet you have disregarded that there is a climate expert in the thread who has repeatedly posted evidence and data that you have brushed aside. You use as a source a weatherman who has never published a peer-reviewed work on climate change but writes books skeptical of the science. As someone who isn't an expert, why do you see yourself as better able to conclude that it's all bull, especially based on another non-expert's conclusions?

[BraveUlysses]

we need a gwb bingo game

[cale]

rwh, you're a bore
you have no better understanding of the science than me, herbal, cale etc
yet you position yourself as an expert
rofl

After seeing all of his posts, I'll gladly concede he's more knowledgeable than myself on the topic. You make a concious choice to remain ignorant and informed through false or mistepresented data, that doesn't mean everyone else without a degree on the subject is equally misinformed and in the same box as you. Presenting false science through the type of links you provide does not give you an equal grasp of the study, it highlights your incompetence in understanding what is factual and what is propaganda.

[tjts1]

truth is a bitch, eh?

Son you wouldn't know truth if it smacked you in the face.

[gwb72tii]

wow, just wow
(shakes head)
predicted

[rwh11385]

we need a gwb bingo game

Yes, we can add another move.

wow, just wow
(shakes head)
predicted

Saying that logical arguments were expected, so then chooses total avoidance of responding with any real answer.

[BraveUlysses]

Yes, we can add another move.


Saying that logical arguments were expected, so then chooses total avoidance of responding with any real answer.

well, he's basically a piece of shit liar, so what can you really expect

[rwh11385]

well, he's basically a piece of shit liar, so what can you really expect

He expects people to eat it up, since that's what his clients do. And what he does to WATTSUPWITHTHAT and ZEROHEDGE.

Spewing BS and then not expecting people to recount him with facts to disprove his inaccuracies and point out his fallacious arguments is asinine.

[cale]

He doesn't admit he's pushing false information because he's genuine in his ignorance, he actually believes the shit he spouts off on. That's why it's so damn entertaining.

[gwb72tii]

He doesn't admit he's pushing false information because he's genuine in his ignorance, he actually believes the shit he spouts off on. That's why it's so damn entertaining.

this is really an amazing statement, even for you cale. if it were rwh (disagree with gwb) i'd let it go and then yank his chain again.

so when credible climates scientists disagree with the AGW camp and it's assertions/postulations/hypotheses, the very fact they disagree means they're not credible, is that it? or do you disagree with the science, if you understand it?

[gwb72tii]

and speaking of hypotheses, and the scientific method
i find it interesting that the AGW camp strives to modify their models for current data when the data doesn't agree with their initial assumptions. exactly backasswards.
the AGW camp should be striving to disprove their models' predicted results once they're set to test their original hypotheses, not modify the models to fit the results

[rwh11385]

and speaking of hypotheses, and the scientific method
i find it interesting that the AGW camp strives to modify their models for current data when the data doesn't agree with their initial assumptions. exactly backasswards.
the AGW camp should be striving to disprove their models' predicted results once they're set to test their original hypotheses, not modify the models to fit the results

So you have no clue how models work. And you think people should disprove their models instead of improving the models?

Please stop talking out of your ass about things you have no idea about. You fundamentally do not understand the basics of science, theory, models, and experimental data.