Global Warming w/o Tiggy

[Roy]

Well, I got work to do. Making money wins over you Roy. and the sad thing is that you admitted that I was right that ice extent is above normal. Yet you have spilt many electrons protesting that that doesn't matter. How sad for you. In my opinion, you have no credibility with me. You agree that I am right, yet proclaim loudly that I can't be right. How silly.

So the possibility of you being right about one thing while being wrong about another doesn't even occur to you.

Roy

[Augustine2004]

There was indeed a time when the data could be characterized as, 'The Arctic is melting.' I think Glenn's characterization, the Arctic ice isn't melting, is just as valid. I think Roy was wrong to spend so much time on what after all is an informal description.

[oxmixmudd]

There was indeed a time when the data could be characterized as, 'The Arctic is melting.' I think Glenn's characterization, the Arctic ice isn't melting, is just as valid. I think Roy was wrong to spend so much time on what after all is an informal description.

An interesting point! I wonder if Glenn had simply characterized the result as "the arctic is refreezing" would have produced the same storm. Clearly the ice extent has increased over the last 3 years.


Jim

[FLovell]

...One wonders why the only chart on the page which almost but not quite shows what Roy wants was selected specifically to make the claim that I was lying?

I am always disappointed and chagrined when one of my fellow atheists displays an inability to make the (perhaps subtle, but nonetheless vital) distinction between an honest error and a lie! Andmost especially when it is not even clear that an actual error has been made!

I know you hate it when one of your fellow Christians does that, but I want to go on record that I hate it just as much as you must -- and I am a complete loss to explain it -- when one of my fellow atheists does it too. It simply blows my mind!

-- Frank

[Challenger Grim]

And now for a bit of humor.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2344

There are a lot of people out there—unqualified, un-degreed, un-peer-reviewed people—who actively reject the consensus among climate skeptics. These people are rank deniers.

[grmorton]

So the possibility of you being right about one thing while being wrong about another doesn't even occur to you.

Roy

Roy, having looked at the raw data,and lots and lots of it, it is hard for me to conclude that the raw temperature data is capable of measuring the signal of warming the IPCC claims.

Can I be wrong, YES. But data is what must convince me, not your scurrilous charges that I am lying. You on the AGW side always like to toss out the lie charge at anyone who disagrees. I suspect that it is so much easier for you all to go that direction than to actually look at the data. And you all don't seem to ever consider when casting that 'liar' charge around that one can honestly be wrong, even on seriously and honestly held beliefs.

Now lets turn the tables. Could YOU be wrong in the general case? Could you be wrong about global warming? (I infer from your question that you think only I can be the one in error)

[grmorton]

Glenn - You have missed Roys points - I am not sure why. The trend for the last three years has been up, and it may be that the most recent data is finally on or above the normal line, and it may be that a lack of sunspots are contributing to a cooling trend - I personally tend to think that is the case - but from what I can see you have overstated your case relative to that data. And the issues Roy has pointed out are valid as best I can tell.


Jim

And from our private emails you missed something very very big in that exchange, as you acknowledged.

[Roy]

Can I be wrong, YES. But data is what must convince me, not your scurrilous charges that I am lying.

No amount of data could convince someone so firmly entrenched in their opinion that they simply assume the data supports them and don't bother to verify it.

Roy

[Augustine2004]

No amount of data could convince someone so firmly entrenched in their opinion that they simply assume the data supports them and don't bother to verify it.

Roy

Ah! At long last someone who actually went out and verified the data! Could he please show me how the global average was calculated?

[Roy]

Ah! At long last someone who actually went out and verified the data! Could he please show me how the global average was calculated?

Your grasp of grammar would gain great benefit from a prehensile tale.

Roy

[Augustine2004]

Tale? A tall tale, perhaps?

[Littlejoe]

Ah! At long last someone who actually went out and verified the data! Could he please show me how the global average was calculated?

Your grasp of grammar would gain great benefit from a prehensile tale.

Roy

So THAT'S how they do it...they use a monkey's behind to guesstimate it....

LJ

[grmorton]

No amount of data could convince someone so firmly entrenched in their opinion that they simply assume the data supports them and don't bother to verify it.

Roy

Roy I noticed that you didn't answer the question I asked you. Could you be wrong? Apparently you dont' think it is possible for you to be wrong about AGW. It must be nice to be so certain that anyone who disagrees with you simply MUST be wrong by definition.

[Roy]

Roy I noticed that you didn't answer the question I asked you. Could you be wrong? Apparently you dont' think it is possible for you to be wrong about AGW. It must be nice to be so certain that anyone who disagrees with you simply MUST be wrong by definition.

You didn't answer all the questions I asked either. But I have no need to castigate you for imagined responses.

Roy

[Augustine2004]

Roy and Glenn Morton, may I suggest y'all list all the questions that you want answered and explain why you consider inadequate the responses if any to the questions?