How Scientists Got Climate Change So Wrong

[One Bad Pig]

It is a jab, a specific sort of sarcastic criticism, of those in the anti-climate change community that try to cast aspersions on the science of climate change over what is generally presented as the climate science community exaggerating the effects of AGW. What the author is doing is pointing out that in some cases that same scientific community underestimated those same effects -significantly so. What this sort of criticism does is bring into stark focus both the dangers of large corporations and other special interest groups funding misinformation at the expense of the long term well being of all of us and the ignorance of those that due to their fears and anti-science biases willingly accept that same misinformation over the careful research of legitimate scientific organizations.

And it bears mentioning that you are actually perverting the focus of the article, which is NOT to be critical of the science and scientists, but the political and corporate forces that have made their voices harder to hear and trust and forced them to be wary of speaking loudly about the data in the true direction it leads - especially when that data shows things are capable of going bad quickly.

I am well aware of the focus of the article, Jim. We're talking about the title. I will concede that the title may well be from the editor rather than the author, and so my comments may have been misplaced in that regard.

Juvenal is on record as being highly disparaging of headlines which do not accurately reflect the content of the associated article, but perhaps the Grey Lady gets a pass.

[oxmixmudd]

Well, yeah, while...

A) failing to worship at the altar of the climate science gods
2) failing to be totally consumed with daily spewings forth of all manner of criticisms and railings against the Orange One.

3B) failing to think logically or carefully.

[oxmixmudd]

I am well aware of the focus of the article, Jim. We're talking about the title. I will concede that the title may well be from the editor rather than the author, and so my comments may have been misplaced in that regard.

Juvenal is on record as being highly disparaging of headlines which do not accurately reflect the content of the associated article, but perhaps the Grey Lady gets a pass.

In the post I replied to, you were also talking about the content of the article:

[the title sic]Doesn't appear to be a pun, either; the author seems to genuinely think its[AGW sic] affects have been vastly underestimated by scientists.

And that statement, the one in bold and italic, and discussing the content of the article as it relates to the title, is the target of the portion of my reply listed below for clarity:

And it bears mentioning that you are actually perverting the focus of the article [in the above sic], which is NOT to be critical of the science and scientists, but the political and corporate forces that have made their voices harder to hear and trust and forced them to be wary of speaking loudly about the data in the true direction it leads - especially when that data shows things are capable of going bad quickly.

[Cow Poke]

3B) failing to think logically or carefully.

Yes, I think you are, because you have pretty much alienated everybody here who calls Jesus Lord, and you have allied yourself with everybody here who is an enemy of the cross, and would stab you in the back in heartbeat if you ever tried to share Jesus with them.

And some of your little emotional eruptions have been far from logical or careful, Jim.

[One Bad Pig]

In the post I replied to, you were also talking about the content of the article:



And that statement, the one in bold and italic, and discussing the content of the article as it relates to the title, is the target of the portion of my reply listed below for clarity:

When talking about A, while B may be true, that B is true does not necessarily negate the point of A. This is a valid point whether you happen to like me or not. If you're just spoiling for another point of contention, I'll bow out. Thanks.

[Leonhard]

Like others I tend to dislike sensationalist titles.

[oxmixmudd]

When talking about A, while B may be true, that B is true does not necessarily negate the point of A. This is a valid point whether you happen to like me or not. If you're just spoiling for another point of contention, I'll bow out. Thanks.

You were just picking a fight anyway, so probably for the best.

[One Bad Pig]

You were just picking a fight anyway, so probably for the best.

By disagreeing with your sharp criticism of my comment to someone else?

[oxmixmudd]

Yes, I think you are, because you have pretty much alienated everybody here who calls Jesus Lord, and you have allied yourself with everybody here who is an enemy of the cross, and would stab you in the back in heartbeat if you ever tried to share Jesus with them.

And some of your little emotional eruptions have been far from logical or careful, Jim.

I haven't had any emotional eruptions here in a little while CP. You have. Pix is nearly always an emotional eruption. OBP usually posts 1 or two times and if I don't agree with him says something about how irrational I am and bails. MM is just always annoying but can mostly be ignored.

I have alienated people because I have not adopted the status quo political ideas and fear of science common to evangelical Christianity in the US. I've been attacked and maligned and good bit for it too, and sometimes I'll admit it has gotten under my skin. And during those times sometimes I've responded in kind to some pretty mean things things said with some equally mean replies. Usually I regret it, but I haven't noticed anyone else regretting their part in it. Nevertheless, the only reason you and others are alienated is that you don't like that a fellow Christian thinks differently than you do about some of these things. None of you can hold a meaningful conversation with me on these topics and not start attacking me as a person.

So - it is what it is.

People can chose to continue to attack me because I won't fall in line - in which case I'll do my best to ignore them. Or, they can discuss the topics themselves. I don't have an ounce of control over what choice is made by others. I can only do my best to keep it civil and dispassionate from where I sit, which is what I'm trying to do.

[Cow Poke]

I haven't had any emotional eruptions here in a little while CP. You have.

Nope, cool as a cucumber. Even JimL doesn't rattle me anymore. It's all in your head, my friend.

[oxmixmudd]

Nope, cool as a cucumber. Even JimL doesn't rattle me anymore. It's all in your head, my friend.

yep - that is why you keep saying Done! every time I don't agree with you or point out where you have made a mistake. Very cool.

[One Bad Pig]

OBP usually posts 1 or two times and if I don't agree with him says something about how irrational I am and bails.

Fascinating. Is this thread an example of such, in your estimation?

[oxmixmudd]

By disagreeing with your sharp criticism of my comment to someone else?

You ignored the content of my response where your mistake on that point was explained. So yes, clearly you are just picking a fight and have no interest in rational discussion.

[Cow Poke]

....Nevertheless, the only reason you and others are alienated is that you don't like that a fellow Christian thinks differently than you ...

Yeah, sure, Jim - has NOTHING to do with your little outbursts where you call me a liar and make false accusations and imagine all kinds of anger and me "getting set off"....

No -- you appear to be on some kind of emotional roller coaster at times. It's not healthy. You perceive a threat, you lash out, you complain about there being "no friends", and if somebody points any of this out, you go into "I'm not going to lay here and let you turn this all on me".

If I can consistently be polite and respectful to JimL who, by the way, appears to be one of your loyal fans, then maybe you can try just a little harder not to be so 'triggered'.

[oxmixmudd]

Fascinating. Is this thread an example of such, in your estimation?

Close enough. You ignored all content in my posts and just tried to pretend I was picking a fight with you or being irrational. It is what it is OBP, and I know you'll not spend 5 seconds considering the possibility I have a point. So it is what it is. You are who you are.