Free Energy is just a bad name...

[zapta]

You are the one who is being dishonest.   I just pointed to several of your posts that - as anyone can see - are a deliberate attempt to refute the reality of global warming - (which Spencer does not refute -despite what you say).

So if you want to move past that please answer 2 simple questions:

1) Do you believe the planet is warming?
     a) Yes
     b) No

2) If a) then why have you made repeated posts which try to convince people otherwise
    If b) - why post videos from Roy Spencer who believes it is warming and please provide some evidence for your claim.

Thank you.

At some layers of the atmospheres there is a measurable warming that is below the levels predicted by the IPCC models. The rate of increase is almost insignificant since 1998. When computing the 30 years average (the classical 'climate' period) , the pre 1998 warming increases the overall slope so the slop of the change from 1998 is even lower.



http://wattsupwiththat.com/global-temperature/

And then there is the question of cause,  the pro and cons of increased CO2 level,  and the implications of increased temperature.

As I said, the catashtrophic-man-made-global-warming predictions are grossly exaggerated, the notion of 'settled science' is a lie,  and so is your claim that the above contradicts Roy Spencer.

mtdoc, are doing disservice to science.

[mtdoc]

I never said I thought that was the case. What I was getting at is this: Raw data doesn't lie, but humans do. You can massage numbers to say anything you want.

But, since I'm not a climate scientist, I can't take the raw data and get something meaningful out, to verify for myself. Therefor I have to take someone's word that what they're telling me is the truth. Therein lies the rub...

OK. But I assume you believe the scientific community when it comes to evolution - yet are not a biologist. I assume that in every other case of a scientific consensus that has emerged over decades of research you accept that consensus view without being an expert in the field.

So why is that not true for climate science?  I would posit that it is because the $100s of millions spent by the fossil fuel industry to create a manufactured controversy has been successful in creating doubt in you mind despite the scientific consensus.

This is why Reddits science forum banned posters like some of those here who continue to post  links to fossil fuel funded disinformation sites and never and reputable scientific sources (NO, I am not suggesting that be done here!).  That kind of pseudoscience - and repeated recursive links back to the same discreditted sources is very destructive to any rational discussion of the science. It leads otherwise intelligent people to come to the false conclusion that both sides of the debate are on equal scientific footing.

[zapta]

I never said I thought that was the case. What I was getting at is this: Raw data doesn't lie, but humans do. You can massage numbers to say anything you want.

But, since I'm not a climate scientist, I can't take the raw data and get something meaningful out, to verify for myself. Therefor I have to take someone's word that what they're telling me is the truth. Therein lies the rub...

OK. But I assume you believe the scientific community when it comes to evolution - yet are not a biologist. I assume that in every other case of a scientific consensus that has emerged over decades of research you accept that consensus view without being an expert in the field.

So why is that not true for climate science?  I would posit that it is because the $100s of millions spent by the fossil fuel industry to create a manufactured controversy has been successful in creating doubt in you mind despite the scientific consensus.

This is why Reddits science forum banned posters like some of those here who continue to post  links to fossil fuel funded disinformation sites and never and reputable scientific sources (NO, I am not suggesting that be done here!).  That kind of pseudoscience - and repeated recursive links back to the same discreditted sources is very destructive to any rational discussion of the science. It leads otherwise intelligent people to come to the false conclusion that both sides of the debate are on equal scientific footing.

Sorry mtdoc, I tried to reason and be patient with you but we are going in loops.

I just want to hope that you will not be disappointed if the catastrophic-man-made-global-warming predictions will not materialize (and I don't expect the CO2 emissions to go down any time soon).

[mtdoc]

You are the one who is being dishonest.   I just pointed to several of your posts that - as anyone can see - are a deliberate attempt to refute the reality of global warming - (which Spencer does not refute -despite what you say).

So if you want to move past that please answer 2 simple questions:

1) Do you believe the planet is warming?
     a) Yes
     b) No

2) If a) then why have you made repeated posts which try to convince people otherwise
    If b) - why post videos from Roy Spencer who believes it is warming and please provide some evidence for your claim.

Thank you.

At some layers of the atmospheres there is a measurable warming that is below the levels predicted by the IPCC models. The rate of increase is almost insignificant since 1998. When computing the 30 years average (the classical 'climate' period) , the pre 1998 warming increases the overall slope so the slop of the change from 1998 is even lower.

Zapta - you repeatedly post links and cut and past from the same discredited fossil fuel industry funded disinformation site (wattsupwiththat) but despite repeated requests never post links or anything from reputable scientific sources.  Why is that?

As I've posted before - there is no disagreement in the scientific community that global warming is occuring (even Spencer agrees). One again here are some links to reputable data sets:

Full data set showing the 0.124 K/decade temperature increase.

Cherry picked data - starting at the 1998 debunked by REMSS themselves.

Continuing to post that demonstrates you have no interest in truth but are simply interested in trying to seed FUD.

There are several data sets that have been looked at all of which agree that the planet is warming.

So based on your post - you seem to be continuing to try and convince others that significant global warming is not occurring (despite what your posted video expert says). So why did you assert otherwise just above?  Why do you refuse to post any reputable scientific research data to support that claim? No, cherry picking the 1998 date does not count - as by REMSS themselves point out:

The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope

[zapta]

You are the one who is being dishonest.   I just pointed to several of your posts that - as anyone can see - are a deliberate attempt to refute the reality of global warming - (which Spencer does not refute -despite what you say).

So if you want to move past that please answer 2 simple questions:

1) Do you believe the planet is warming?
     a) Yes
     b) No

2) If a) then why have you made repeated posts which try to convince people otherwise
    If b) - why post videos from Roy Spencer who believes it is warming and please provide some evidence for your claim.

Thank you.

At some layers of the atmospheres there is a measurable warming that is below the levels predicted by the IPCC models. The rate of increase is almost insignificant since 1998. When computing the 30 years average (the classical 'climate' period) , the pre 1998 warming increases the overall slope so the slop of the change from 1998 is even lower.

Zapta - you repeatedly post links and cut and past from the same discredited fossil fuel industry funded disinformation site (wattsupwiththat) but despite repeated requests never post links or anything from reputable scientific sources.  Why is that?

As I've posted before - there is no disagreement in the scientific community that global warming is occuring (even Spencer agrees). One again here are some links to reputable data sets:

Full data set showing the 0.124 K/decade temperature increase.

Cherry picked data - starting at the 1998 debunked by REMSS themselves.

Continuing to post that demonstrates you have no interest in truth but are simply interested in trying to seed FUD.

There are several data sets that have been looked at all of which agree that the planet is warming.

So based on your post - you seem to be continuing to try and convince others that significant global warming is not occurring (despite what your posted video expert says). So why did you assert otherwise just above?  Why do you refuse to post any reputable scientific research data to support that claim? No, cherry picking the 1998 date does not count - as by REMSS themselves point out:

The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope

OK.

[MT]

Well - that bunch of nonsense -clearly demonstrates much about your mental clarity and agenda. Religion, Streisand effect, eating pigs and farting cows. Again - we're back in the la la crazy land where this thread started.  

Perhaps it was a bait and you took it, again and again..or not. You seams to be very angry all the time particularly if questioned around things you claim absolute facts and the only truth!
 
Basically, you started it throwing tantrums, such as "Cherry picked" "poor reading comprehension" "mental clarity", "political agenda is shameless", "consensus", "not a climate scientist ", "trolls", "old nut", "nonsense","pseudoscience", "ideologists", "debunked", "factually deficient disinformation", just a "weatherman not a climate scientists", " there were no mammals alive bigger than a tree shrew". "worldwide conspiracy", consensus","not honestly","manipulating data, not a climate scientist", etc, etc, etc and every other label possible the mindset of a character assassin mini pope could come up with.

You went so far calling out on George Carlin not climate scientist!!

So ask yourself why on earth (even if you where 101% right) should i or anyone else bother to read any of your links or posts to educate our self's when you show off such a arssassin mentality.

Few sane would say the climate/temperature is not changing rather it is changing but of which reasons, man fart made or not, i'm not climate scientists nor
are you as far as i have seen , i might have missed, nor are science absolute, humans massages data.

For example the tree line in Scandinavian Caledonides mountains have moved several hundred meters uphill in large areas, the forest is
also a lot denser with species that usually not present earlier, i measured it over a 23 year period, surely there is a reason but which one?

So you will probably end in an infinitive negative loop of dishonesty while mutter tantrums about how nice the forum was back in ol' yee days before yourself made it nasty.

Ah, well, i was warned by some folks here when i joined  this forum could be quite nasty at times..

[timb]

I never said I thought that was the case. What I was getting at is this: Raw data doesn't lie, but humans do. You can massage numbers to say anything you want.

But, since I'm not a climate scientist, I can't take the raw data and get something meaningful out, to verify for myself. Therefor I have to take someone's word that what they're telling me is the truth. Therein lies the rub...

OK. But I assume you believe the scientific community when it comes to evolution - yet are not a biologist. I assume that in every other case of a scientific consensus that has emerged over decades of research you accept that consensus view without being an expert in the field.

So why is that not true for climate science?  I would posit that it is because the $100s of millions spent by the fossil fuel industry to create a manufactured controversy has been successful in creating doubt in you mind despite the scientific consensus.

This is why Reddits science forum banned posters like some of those here who continue to post  links to fossil fuel funded disinformation sites and never and reputable scientific sources (NO, I am not suggesting that be done here!).  That kind of pseudoscience - and repeated recursive links back to the same discreditted sources is very destructive to any rational discussion of the science. It leads otherwise intelligent people to come to the false conclusion that both sides of the debate are on equal scientific footing.

I already answered that: Money is the reason.

Evolution is not a billion dollar a year industry. Neither is gravity, the Earth being round, etc.

Green Energy is.

Big Oil may be spreading FUD, but that's not the reason for my misgivings. In fact, the Green Energy side has been spreading the same fear for many, many years. No, my apprehensions directly relate to the fact that *both* sides are trying to sell me something.

Also, I've spelled out this out very clearly at least twice now: I don't doubt climate change is happening. What I have are doubts about the reasons. And, as far as I know, there is no consensus in the scientific community saying that humans are the [/i]sole reason[/i] it's happening.

If our burning coal and petroleum *is* the sole cause, well the problem will take care of itself in the next decade when we have nothing left to burn, won't it? If it's *not* the reason, well, we're still going to run out of that coal and oil, right? So either way you slice it, it's still a problem that needs fixing. (That problem being our reliance on dead Pterodactyls and Brontosaurs as a fuel source.)

If we do that and the climate continues to change, we'll need to either adapt or come up with a way to tame Mother Nature, ala the Weather Generator Nets from Star Trek.

So, what I don't get is why you're so caught up in the particulars of *why* people believe in climate change. Why isn't it enough for us to just believe the climate is changing? For the average person, does it really matter why?

This would be like us both believing in evolution, but you saying God was really behind it. You can't prove it and I can't disprove it, so at the end of the day we both still believe in evolution.

[Zero999]

If our burning coal and petroleum *is* the sole cause, well the problem will take care of itself in the next decade when we have nothing left to burn, won't it? If it's *not* the reason, well, we're still going to run out of that coal and oil, right? So either way you slice it, it's still a problem that needs fixing. (That problem being our reliance on dead Pterodactyls and Brontosaurs as a fuel source.)

If we do that and the climate continues to change, we'll need to either adapt or come up with a way to tame Mother Nature, ala the Weather Generator Nets from Star Trek.

There already is a fairly strong consensus amongst the scientific community that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of climate change.

There's enough carbon down there to cause a lot of environmental damage. Another issue is the possibility of a positive feedback effects such as the melting of ice (which is reflective) exposing bare earth and sea, which absorbs more solar radiation and methane bubbles (another potent greenhouse gas) trapped in ice being released into the atmosphere, causing further warming. So, even if we stopped burning fossil fuels today, further warming may continue as a result of the damage we've already done.

The idea that it's all a big hoax just doesn't make any sense. The amount of money the green energy companies have is dwarfed by the big fossil fuel companies. I used to be on the other side but I did some research and there's no way it's all one big conspiracy.

The annoying thing here is the free energy folk are deemed to be trolls when they push their pseudoscience, yet the some of the people who are calling them trolls are doing the same, pushing their anti-anthropogenic climate change bollocks. It's very hypocritical.

[mtdoc]

I never said I thought that was the case. What I was getting at is this: Raw data doesn't lie, but humans do. You can massage numbers to say anything you want.

But, since I'm not a climate scientist, I can't take the raw data and get something meaningful out, to verify for myself. Therefor I have to take someone's word that what they're telling me is the truth. Therein lies the rub...

OK. But I assume you believe the scientific community when it comes to evolution - yet are not a biologist. I assume that in every other case of a scientific consensus that has emerged over decades of research you accept that consensus view without being an expert in the field.

So why is that not true for climate science?  I would posit that it is because the $100s of millions spent by the fossil fuel industry to create a manufactured controversy has been successful in creating doubt in you mind despite the scientific consensus.

This is why Reddits science forum banned posters like some of those here who continue to post  links to fossil fuel funded disinformation sites and never and reputable scientific sources (NO, I am not suggesting that be done here!).  That kind of pseudoscience - and repeated recursive links back to the same discreditted sources is very destructive to any rational discussion of the science. It leads otherwise intelligent people to come to the false conclusion that both sides of the debate are on equal scientific footing.

I already answered that: Money is the reason.

Evolution is not a billion dollar a year industry. Neither is gravity, the Earth being round, etc.

Green Energy is.

Big Oil may be spreading FUD, but that's not the reason for my misgivings. In fact, the Green Energy side has been spreading the same fear for many, many years. No, my apprehensions directly relate to the fact that *both* sides are trying to sell me something.

Thanks for your response. As I posted earlier in response to IanB - "green energy" is a trivially small business (likely <0.1%) in comparison to the fossil fuel industry which is THE largest business in the world by far.  I have never seen any evidence green energy spends any money sponsoring propaganda websites, lobbying politicians to support climate science, etc.  On the other hand many $100 of billions have been documented spent on such activities by the fossil fuel industry.

Also, I've spelled out this out very clearly at least twice now: I don't doubt climate change is happening. What I have are doubts about the reasons. And, as far as I know, there is no consensus in the scientific community saying that humans are the [/i]sole reason[/i] it's happening.

Actually there IS consensus on that point. See here, here, and here.

So, what I don't get is why you're so caught up in the particulars of *why* people believe in climate change.

What I am interested in is why people who otherwise trust the scientific consensus on every other issue, do not trust it on this issue.  And why on an engineering forum of all places, otherwise well informed and educated people either unknowingly or knowingly seek to mislead others on what the scientific consensus is.

I find these questions fascinating. Despite my arguing my views passionately and calling out others when I see them failing to justify their views with scientific evidence - what this is about for me is exploring how others - especially the engineers and electronics enthusiasts here  - come to their views on the subject and how they respond (or fail to) when asked to justify their opinion with science.  I also can't let pseudoscience and disinformation left unchallenged. For me it is exactly the same as the back and forth that occurred at the start of this thread by others with the OP regarding free energy and gall bladder cleanses.

Thanks again for clarifying your views.  And thanks to Zapta as well (I really mean it) for arguing his side of it. I've actually enjoyed the debate and learned something in the process. (yes, I know, perhaps I'm sick that way  )

[timb]

If our burning coal and petroleum *is* the sole cause, well the problem will take care of itself in the next decade when we have nothing left to burn, won't it? If it's *not* the reason, well, we're still going to run out of that coal and oil, right? So either way you slice it, it's still a problem that needs fixing. (That problem being our reliance on dead Pterodactyls and Brontosaurs as a fuel source.)

If we do that and the climate continues to change, we'll need to either adapt or come up with a way to tame Mother Nature, ala the Weather Generator Nets from Star Trek.

There already is a fairly strong consensus amongst the scientific community that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of climate change.

There's enough carbon down there to cause a lot of environmental damage. Another issue is the possibility of a positive feedback effects such as the melting of ice (which is reflective) exposing bare earth and sea, which absorbs more solar radiation and methane bubbles (another potent greenhouse gas) trapped in ice being released into the atmosphere, causing further warming. So, even if we stopped burning fossil fuels today, further warming may continue as a result of the damage we've already done.

The idea that it's all a big hoax just doesn't make any sense. The amount of money the green energy companies have is dwarfed by the big fossil fuel companies. I used to be on the other side but I did some research and there's no way it's all one big conspiracy.

The annoying thing here is the free energy folk are deemed to be trolls when they push their pseudoscience, yet the some of the people who are calling them trolls are doing the same, pushing their anti-anthropogenic climate change bollocks. It's very hypocritical.

I don't think it's a hoax or a big conspiracy. I also never said I *don't* think humans are responsible.

My personal viewpoint is that I don't really care either way. At the very least, burning coal and oil creates smog, which makes it difficult to breath. At the worst it's damaging the world in irreversible ways. We can't reduce emissions much more than we have now, so we need to start pumping money into research for alternative energy.

I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take. Is it?

[mtdoc]

The idea that it's all a big hoax just doesn't make any sense. The amount of money the green energy companies have is dwarfed by the big fossil fuel companies. I used to be on the other side but I did some research and there's no way it's all one big conspiracy.

The annoying thing here is the free energy folk are deemed to be trolls when they push their pseudoscience, yet the some of the people who are calling them trolls are doing the same, pushing their anti-anthropogenic climate change bollocks. It's very hypocritical.

+1 Yep. Exactly.

[timb]

Actually there IS consensus on that point. See here, here, and here.

From the papers that I've read, the theories seem to range from "CO2 emissions may be accelerating or influencing an existing natural climate shift" to "greenhouse gasses are turning our atmosphere into a blanket of death and we're all going to boil in our skin". I'm obviously paraphrasing and exaggerating there, but I guess my point is that I was unaware the global scientific community had reached a unanimous consensus on just how much we have affected climate change. Perhaps this has changed in the last few years? I don't really keep up on it anymore, to be honest. I'll take a look at those links.

I don't doubt that we're causing damage. I just question how much. It's hard to get a straight answer because I feel like *both* sides are engaging in hyperbole (or FUD, muddying the waters, whatever you want to call it). And if I, as an otherwise smart and logical engineer think this, imagine what the general public thinks!

[mtdoc]

Actually there IS consensus on that point. See here, here, and here.

From the papers that I've read, the theories seem to range from "CO2 emissions may be accelerating or influencing an existing natural climate shift" to "greenhouse gasses are turning our atmosphere into a blanket of death and we're all going to boil in our skin". I'm obviously paraphrasing and exaggerating there, but I guess my point is that I was unaware the global scientific community had reached a unanimous consensus on just how much we have affected climate change. Perhaps this has changed in the last few years? I don't really keep up on it anymore, to be honest. I'll take a look at those links.

I just realized I goofed one of those three links- I duplicated one - doh!. The correct third one is here.

I don't doubt that we're causing damage. I just question how much. It's hard to get a straight answer because I feel like *both* sides are engaging in hyperbole (or FUD, muddying the waters, whatever you want to call it). And if I, as an otherwise smart and logical engineer think this, imagine what the general public thinks!

I think that you feel that way is a testament to the successful strategy the fossil fuel industry has employed. After all they don't have to prove anything - all they need to do is create doubt and achieve the impression that both sides are on the same footing regarding the science. Thanks for explaining your view so well.

[zapta]

Well - that bunch of nonsense -clearly demonstrates much about your mental clarity and agenda. Religion, Streisand effect, eating pigs and farting cows. Again - we're back in the la la crazy land where this thread started.  

Perhaps it was a bait and you took it, again and again..or not. You seams to be very angry all the time particularly if questioned around things you claim absolute facts and the only truth!
 
Basically, you started it throwing tantrums, such as "Cherry picked" "poor reading comprehension" "mental clarity", "political agenda is shameless", "consensus", "not a climate scientist ", "trolls", "old nut", "nonsense","pseudoscience", "ideologists", "debunked", "factually deficient disinformation", just a "weatherman not a climate scientists", " there were no mammals alive bigger than a tree shrew". "worldwide conspiracy", consensus","not honestly","manipulating data, not a climate scientist", etc, etc, etc and every other label possible the mindset of a character assassin mini pope could come up with.

This is a general trait, not just in this thread and not just about this topic. Check for example the bickering and anger in the FTIgate 2.0 thread.

We have here a large and diverse user population and some are not that compatible with civilized discussions. As Bernard Shaw said, “Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.”

[timb]

Well, I don't think they're on the same footing regarding the science. Because I *do* believe in climate change. I think my biggest problem is that I've seen what happens when  science and politics mix and it doesn't always turn out well. My biggest worry is that experiments aren't being performed properly, they're being rushed so that they can get another round of funding or whatever. Or that data is being manipulated.

I don't know, I mean maybe if I sat down and spent a few weeks researching it in depth I'd feel more comfortable? The reason I haven't done that is, it doesn't interest me very much and there's no practical benefit to the knowledge for me.

In the end, for me, it's always come down to this: Fossil Fuel = Finite Resource = True; Climate Change = True. Beyond that, I've never seen a reason to have in depth knowledge of the whys or how's. So, when presented with the question of, what causes climate change, I'm pensive about committing to an answer, because I just have a feeling that nobody is being entirely honest.

So, since I don't really care "why" plus the fact I believe in climate change, I'd say some disinformation campaign by Big Oil isn't my problem. Clearly I also believe in the scientific evidence of climate change itself. Why should *I* care why?

Does that make sense?

[zapta]

At the very least, burning coal and oil creates smog, which makes it difficult to breath.

Generating electricity from coal and oil can actually prevent fatalities from air pollution.

http://www.who.int/indoorair/en/

It's a complex world.

[mtdoc]

This is a general trait, not just in this thread and not just about this topic. Check for example the bickering and anger in the FTIgate 2.0 thread.

Some people hide behind fake calls for civility and cry foul when they are not able support their arguments with facts. If you can't take the heat....

Our posts in this and other threads speak for themselves.

Anyone can see that in almost every case I've supported any substantial claims I make with links to reputable sources.

As I stated above to Timb - I readily admit to arguing passionately about this and other topics. If calling you out for posting pseudoscience and failing to support your arguments with any reputable sources upsets you to the point of accusing me of being uncivil then so be it.  Maybe try not to take it so personally?

I do my best to avoid personal attacks but I occasionally get caught up in the heat of the moment and fail - almost exclusively in response to such an attack on me. But still I should do better.  In the case of MT - well - just look over his posts - they speak for themselves - as do yours.

As I've also stated - no anger whatsoever on my end -I actually enjoy a passionate debate. Thanks again. 

[dannyf]

Regarding cows being a big contributor to global warming, I heard on the news today that scientists are discovering that fish fart too, especially when they go up / down in the ocean to  hunt for food. So with gazillions of fish floating around, maybe cows aren't that bad and eating stake is really OK?

[MT]

This is a general trait, not just in this thread and not just about this topic. Check for example the bickering and anger in the FTIgate 2.0 thread.
We have here a large and diverse user population and some are not that compatible with civilized discussions. As Bernard Shaw said, “Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.”

Yeah im aware of that, not only FTDI gate 2.0 had pigs but other threads in history as well i have learned, Sigilent etc. I was a bit surprised you remained patient as long as you where with *mtdoc* while he was lashing out at you now calling it *passionate debate* and claiming people attacked him when the truth is he (initially) was attacking you in post 626-628 , just because he was bored!! Pretty clear he has more problems then this:

[mtdoc]

Regarding cows being a big contributor to global warming, I heard on the news today that scientists are discovering that fish fart too, especially when they go up / down in the ocean to  hunt for food. So with gazillions of fish floating around, maybe cows aren't that bad and eating stake is really OK?

Ha! I have to admit it danny - sometimes you crack me up!  Yes, I do loves me steaks! 

[Synthetase]

This is a general trait, not just in this thread and not just about this topic. Check for example the bickering and anger in the FTIgate 2.0 thread.
We have here a large and diverse user population and some are not that compatible with civilized discussions. As Bernard Shaw said, “Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.”

Yeah im aware of that, not only FTDI gate 2.0 had pigs but other threads in history as well i have learned, Sigilent etc. I was a bit surprised you remained patient as long as you where with *mtdoc* while he was lashing out at you now calling it *passionate debate* and claiming people attacked him when the truth is he (initially) was attacking you in post 628 , because he was bored! Pretty clear he has more problems then this:

[mtdoc]

attacking you in post 626-628

I hate to break it to you MT, but calling someone out for trolling and then responding with referenced facts is not a personal attack.

On the other hand calling someone an illiterate lunatic (#654) or a pig (as you just did) is. 

Yes, irony.

We all can get carried away sometimes.  It's the ratio of posts presenting new information, reasoned argument,  links or helpful advice to trolling or personal attacks that matters to me. I certainly strive to do better in that regard - even if I sometime fail. If my response to your post #654 was too harsh, I apologize.  I wish you well.

Can we get back to farting fish and farting cows now?

[MT]

I hate to break it to you MT, but calling someone out for trolling and then responding with referenced facts is not a personal attack.

Oh please, you do understand there are other world wievs then yours.

On the other hand calling someone an illiterate lunatic (#654) or a pig (as you just did) is. 

Where does it say i call you a pig? Im not, i just replied to zapta who refered to Bernad Shaw, perhaps zepta meant you was a pig?

We all can get carried away sometimes.  It's the ratio of posts presenting new information, links or helpful advice to trolling or personal attacks that matters to me. I certainly strive to do better in that regard - even if I sometime fail. If my response to your post #654 was too harsh, I apologize.  I wish you well.

Oh please, pretty please, you have sequence *character assassinations* etc to apology for, probably to loads of people! Why not start out with zepta then 654 and on and on and on.

Can we get back to farting fish and farting cows now?

Sure!

[Zero999]

I never said I thought that was the case. What I was getting at is this: Raw data doesn't lie, but humans do. You can massage numbers to say anything you want.

But, since I'm not a climate scientist, I can't take the raw data and get something meaningful out, to verify for myself. Therefor I have to take someone's word that what they're telling me is the truth. Therein lies the rub...

OK. But I assume you believe the scientific community when it comes to evolution - yet are not a biologist. I assume that in every other case of a scientific consensus that has emerged over decades of research you accept that consensus view without being an expert in the field.

I find it odd that many people here seem to be fine with the scientific consensus on evolution but have a problem with anthropogenic climate change. Perhaps it's propaganda from the fossil fuel companies?

How appropriate that this thread has made a home for all types of anti-science types trolls.

ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.

Which is perfectly acceptable around here, providing the person who you're having the debate with is arguing for free energy and against the scientific consensus on thermodynamics. But oh no, if they're arguing against anthropogenic climate change it's a cardinal sin.

[zapta]

I never said I thought that was the case. What I was getting at is this: Raw data doesn't lie, but humans do. You can massage numbers to say anything you want.

But, since I'm not a climate scientist, I can't take the raw data and get something meaningful out, to verify for myself. Therefor I have to take someone's word that what they're telling me is the truth. Therein lies the rub...

OK. But I assume you believe the scientific community when it comes to evolution - yet are not a biologist. I assume that in every other case of a scientific consensus that has emerged over decades of research you accept that consensus view without being an expert in the field.

I find it odd that many people here seem to be fine with the scientific consensus on evolution but have a problem with anthropogenic climate change. Perhaps it's propaganda from the fossil fuel companies?

Because the later is a fake consensus. See Spencer's talk on how he, a catastrophic-man mad-global-warning skeptic would be counted in  97% and so are many if the skeptics.

Man-contribute-to-measurable-temperature-increase is very different from man-is-the-main-contributor-to-catastrophic-global-warming.