[PluggyRug]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well at least we've dragged the so-called skeptics out of flat-out denial. That only took 30 years. lol

...and the so called worshipers in the Church of AGW are still relying on their faith.

I think we've been down the science road before, and I recall that you tapped out pretty early, so I don't think you have the requisite knowledge to rationally draw that conclusion.

Science We are talking about faith here.

[Zipperfish]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Science We are talking about faith here.

And what is the basis of that claim? Do you not believe that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing? Do you not believe that the CO2 comes mainly from combustion of fossil fuels? Do you not believe that CO2 reflects and emits in the infrared spectrum? Where does it fall apart for you, exactly?

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

You're gaslighting, Fiddle.

I'm not sure if you're lying again or if you honestly don't know what gaslighting is. I'll tell you what it's not. When somebody tells you, you said something you didn't it's not telling them they're lying. In fact, if you saw the movie the term was coined from you'd know it was the liar who was the gaslighter.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Science We are talking about faith here.

And what is the basis of that claim?

Here ya go...MIT professor, Richard Lindzen will explain it to you.

MIT professor: global warming is a ‘religion’

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

You're gaslighting, Fiddle.

I'm not sure if you're lying again or if you honestly don't know what gaslighting is. I'll tell you what it's not. When somebody tells you, you said something you didn't it's not telling them they're lying. In fact, if you saw the movie the term was coined from you'd know it was the liar who was the gaslighter.

You're not fooling anyone tat's been here a while, Fiddle. Really. You've been railing against global warming here for years now. Mann is a crook, and Lindzen is a "professor." Linking to Watts Up With That while denigrating Skeptical Science. Lionizing anyone who claimed it was all a ruse, and caling anyone who believed global warming science religious zealots.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Science We are talking about faith here.

And what is the basis of that claim?

Here ya go...MIT professor, Richard Lindzen will explain it to you.

MIT professor: global warming is a ‘religion’

Nope. Just blather. I didn't see a single scientific analysis in there.
And he's still repeating the old "no warming in 15 years" line.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

You're not fooling anyone tat's been here a while, Fiddle. Really. You've been railing against global warming here for years now. Mann is a crook, and Lindzen is a "professor." Linking to Watts Up With That while denigrating Skeptical Science. Lionizing anyone who claimed it was all a ruse, and caling anyone who believed global warming science religious zealots.

I would hope not to "fool anyone". I watch you attempt it with your sophistry and false allegations. I wouldn't want to be that person.

For example what I said here is Mann's hockey stick graph was massively discredited. I believe that. I don't know what you believe, but I do know you take the opposite position.

That's not " railing against global warming." That's disagreeing. Watts and John Cook disagree. You and I have both had critical things to say about either. You appear to believe disagreeing is "denying" the faith. That's on you, not me.

Zealot.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish,

I suppose one argument that can be made for illustrating the belief in AGW as a religion is that people like yourself trot out the same charts and graphs to back up your charts and graphs.

It's no different from trying to argue with Creationists who use the Bible to filter their perceptions of the physical world and then they use their Biblically skewed perceptions of the physical world to validate the Biblical passages that 'prove' the world is 6,000 years old and etc.

With the Creationists I run into I tell them that trying to use the Bible to prove the Bible to people who don't believe in the Bible is a fool's errand.

Likewise, if you're going to use data from AGW proponents to prove data from AGW proponents to people who don't believe in the Holy Writ of data from AGW proponents then your argument is no longer one of science but one of belief.

Try a different tactic. That's all I'm saying here.

I'm not saying you're nworng, I'm simply encouraging you to change up your approach.

[Tricks]

What do you propose is used, other than empirical data?

Example: I get pulled over, and the cop shows me the radar gun, and I say "I don't believe in radar guns." Why is it the responsibility of the cop to prove it to me some other way?

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Nope. Just blather. I didn't see a single scientific analysis in there.
And he's still repeating the old "no warming in 15 years" line.

You wanted to know why an increasing number of people are seeing CAGW as faith rather than Science. Nobody claimed there was a scientific analysis.

Lindzen tried to explain the basics of what's bringing people to the realization though.

Here: try this one then.

Global Warming as Religion and not Science

As to your graph. Kind of a hysterical bit of art don't you think? Considering all it really shows is temperature change of tenths of a degree based on rewritten and some say false data.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Nope. Just blather. I didn't see a single scientific analysis in there.
And he's still repeating the old "no warming in 15 years" line.

You wanted to know why an increasing number of people are seeing CAGW as faith rather than Science. Nobody claimed there was a scientific analysis.

Lindzen tried to explain the basics of what's bringing people to the realization though.

Here: try this one then.

Global Warming as Religion and not Science

As to your graph. Kind of a hysterical bit of art don't you think? Considering all it really shows is temperature change of tenths of a degree based on rewritten and some say false data.

So there you go, the gaslighting again. "Oh, I never said there was o such thing as global warming." I show a graph showing the temperature record indicating measured warming. "False data!!!"

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

So there you go, the gaslighting again. "Oh, I never said there was o such thing as global warming." I show a graph showing the temperature record indicating measured warming. "False data!!!"

The manipulation of the graph appears hysterical to me. The X-axis is shrunk The Y-axis is stretched.

It only shows tenths of a degree in spite of the glaring red upward line calling attention to itself.

2 years ago a reasonable graph based on the consensus agreement of the data would have had a flat line at the top showing no warming since 1998.

There's a guy named Thom Karl. He's not a professor. He's always seemed to be more an administrator to me. He came along with a team and rewrote the data. Then it was 'Ping!' The flatline got an instant erection and up went the tip at the top.

None of that is Gaslighting. It's an expression of fact or my judgement of facts. Calling it gaslighting might be gaslighting though.

[N_Fiddledog]

Tricks Tricks:

What do you propose is used, other than empirical data?

Not data that's been rewritten by an administrator and his minions for what appears to be questionable purposes.

That might be a start.

Not 'a hundred climate models and I'll tell you which one I was serious about in 50 years when we know which one came closest.'

Not manipulated data like a temp in the Arctic or Antarctic that's smeared across the map mathematically to guess what the temp might be a thousand miles away.

Data like that we could probably do without if we're going to pretend what we want to show is science.

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

What do you propose is used, other than empirical data?

Data from politically subordinate researchers is not 'empirical' any more than a poll by the Democrat National Committee is unbiased.

You could develop your own data.

Try creating a temperature record from the microfilm records of your local newspaper and then see if that record matches up to the 'empirical' data you cite.

Then release your findings.

See, even though you're just citing a record for one single town it should still reflect the overall trends that AGW proponents cite.

We should see the global trends reflected in the local data.

...or not.

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

What do you propose is used, other than empirical data?

Example: I get pulled over, and the cop shows me the radar gun, and I say "I don't believe in radar guns." Why is it the responsibility of the cop to prove it to me some other way?

I got stopped by a cop in King County with a radar gun back in 1991, had him bring the radar gun to court and then had the judge aim the gun at a wall, which was doing 85mph according to the radar gun.

My ticket was dismissed.