Jardine: Please go back and reread my first post. It was about the assumption that Wendy Bacon's sorting of article in pro-and anti-AGW was suspect because she was left-wing.

Then reread your comment on it: "Then you will know that scientific knowledge cannot be based on logical fallacies, and that it is a logical fallacy to reason by groupthink, by appeal to absent authority, by assuming what is in issue, by asserting values from facts, by asserting that mere power decides questions of fact or ethics, and that subjective values can be objectively measured. Therefore you must admit that the warmists have no case either in science or policy, because if you don't, you're affirming fallacies in issue, which proves you have no scientific knowledge as to what is in issue. The problem is precisely that the warmists' case has been demolished over and over and over again, and its supporters have nothing but to keep squarking about how an entire industry of government-funded vested interest cannot possibly be questioned. That's it. That's their entire "scientific" argument. It's absurdly stupid and corrupt."

You ignored what I actually said, jumped to another line altogether and attacked (tried to intimidate) me by stating that if I didn't agree with you that "warmists have no case either in science or policy" then I was affirming fallacies/ had no scientific knowledge".

Your answer was a non-sequitur. You may have not said outright that I was left-wing but you certainly stated that if I didn't agree with your views I was "affirming fallacies/ had no scientific knowledge".

Re your 4 challenges. I suspect that if I put up a debate that disagreed with some or all, you would just call me a 'warmist' - a fallacious scientist - and ignore my arguments. And if I agreed with some or all, you'd just take that as given, even though I might be wrong.

This is why OLO frustrates me. It's really hard to actually debate or discuss issues.

bazz..the numbers are explained here
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php

use the side scroll bar..to get just before middle
it explains everything

also..take the bar most of the way down..to the ACTUAL QUOTES
which are extensive and revealing

at the 3/4 mark are around 20 vidios

at 4/5..are..extensive proof of the fraud$$$,,by hot link
[a sample..of the titles]

Al Gore Set To Become First “Carbon Billionaire"

Britain's main climate monitoring unit is purging its temperature records from public view

Leaked FOIA files 62 mb of gold
Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails
MAN-BEAR-PIG Is Dead!… Emails Prove Global Warming Junk Science Conspiracy

Mike's Nature Trick
Climate change cover-up? You better believe it
Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate

Hacked climate emails include calls for ‘Earth Government' as foundation of new world order

Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand
tells a different story than the “official" one

Warwick Hughes shows how Jones selections
put bias in Australian Temperatures

Climategate: the scandal spreads,
the plot thickens, the shame deepens…

Why is “Climategate" Getting Little to no Coverage?
The Global Warming Scam

Unreal. Climategate Junk Scientist Michael Mann Awarded Half a Million in Stimulus Cash

Scientists using selective temperature data, skeptics say

Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified

BREAKING NEWS: scientist admits IPCC

used fake data to pressure policy makers

Storm brews over glacier blunder

UN climate panel blunders again over Himalayan glaciers

Climate change chief says sorry for hot air claim over melting glaciers

United Nations caught lying again, this time Stormgate

and still the lies go on

a graph they..dont show..us
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
a closer look at the numbers

one thing that repeatedly comes up..s i studied the studies
[ie im a numbers man/woman..not a scientist..but

[cossomby..its 8..posts now]

OUG you know I truly call you a mate.
But on this matter I name you uniformed.
SHOUTING will not change my mind time may change yours.
Labor is in part to blame for us warmist,s only numbering 40 percent now.
One day Gillards part in not letting Rudd do as he wanted before the knifing will support my view.
But mate! you frolic in every conspiracy thread but ignore here the anti global warmers are the victims of a conspiracy to keep fossil fuels unchanged.
Time will let the truth breath.

Cossomby,

Jeeez! so I put away my epee 'casue you told us your were turning in and when I turn around you're at it again!

<<SPQR: you also just demonstrated my point. It's clear you haven't examined your own biases!>>

You are not seeing the big picture.

I'll sketch it in *classical debating* terms for you. We had a little debate going on this here thread. The warmist versus the sceptics (and, although the sceptics were winning it hands down in terms of logical argument) neither side could prevail.

Then in the midst of this stalemate suddenly one of the warmist pops up and says: "Hey guys we'll get a non-aligned person to decide this. Let me introduce you to independent Wendy --see, she even has independent as part of her groups name!"

But alas, when we checked on the background of this honest broker we had strong grounds for doubting her impartiality -- (and that's when you stepped in, Crossomby, play acting Mother Teresa!)

So yes, SPQR has a position, but anyone who followed the thread from the beginning knew that! The issue was whether we could rely on an 'activist' to act as arbiter.

yes belly..it pains me
[all..those i love are on..the other side

[but i..admit..its me that changed..
[about when..climate-gate came out./../

then..i looked at the proof
and there was only..models and graph.s

the proof..there is no proof[it keeps..on being revealed as fraud

so few will remember..once i was with..me mates

it began..in 1817..was revived again..in 1922..
then just after the ww2...war ..again...in 1954
then 1975..again in 1987..then..it..next arouse in connections with the cfc's [ozone-holes]..no..end to it..then cooling..next wareming..now climate change

[THATS NOT STRANGE?*

mate..they..ADMIT..they destroyed data
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/Anthropocentric%20Global%20Warming

they admit SEXING up the numbers

mate here is the ten thousand yeaR GRAPH
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/greenlandicecoretemps.jpg

HERE ARE THE PROJECTIONS
plus the real numbers

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/ipccchart.gif

a leaked email saying its getting..cooler
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=544&filename=1120593115.txt

all'gore has lost court cases
http://abcnews.go.com/US/TenWays/story?id=3719791&page=1

the fudge factor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwGVr8rItsE&feature=player_embedded

no warming for 15 years
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

a bung satellite corrupted data
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7491-official-satellite-failure-means-decade-of-global-warming-data-doubtful

a real'chart of the earth temp
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/SMALL_GeoColumn.jpg

mate do like i HAD TO..DO..look at the data

its the same/old new world order..delusion
http://www.infowars.com/hacked-climate-emails-include-calls-for-earth-government-as-foundation-of-new-world-order-splitting-of-america/

a cover-up
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=climate-change-cover-up-you-better-2009-11-24

the scandel and the shame
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017977/climategate-the-scandal-spreads-the-plot-thickens-the-shame-deepens/

So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts...Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

"The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models." - Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

"The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful." - Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

ITS THE GREENIES MATE*

"It doesn't matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true." - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

spindoc,

"Isn’t that precisely the issue? So what better way to test it."

Oh, now I get it. Not content with having "skeptic" argument continually blown out of the water by "real" scientists, you now want some sort of commission to decide "who's right".

Who's going to adjudicate?

Bottom line is that you would pose such a thing...because your side is the one without the substance.

Tough luck.

"I guess you are now back behind your sandbags and ready to lob more grenades?"

Certainly no need for grenades, spindoc...your mob take care of that aspect by continually shooting yourselves in the foot.

: )

......

OUG,

Regarding your stellar article on consensus- here's John Cook on his method on "consensus"

http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

But let's have a closer look at your article. I suspect if we scratch the surface we'll find Heartland lurking there somewhere.

Now let's see....

The author of said article is one James Taylor.

Could it be this James Taylor?

http://heartland.org/james-m-taylor-jd

Well, blow me down - I think it is!

But next.

Who is the hysterically wronged victim in James' article?

Someone called Craig Idso.

Could it be this Craig Idso?

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=15

"Craig Idso is currently the head of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a group dedicated to attacking the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In February of 2012, internal documents detailing budgets and strategies from the Heartland Institute were released to DeSmogBlog. These documents indicated that Heartland pays Craig Idso $11,600 per month for his work attacking legitimate climate science. Idso's current research focus is on carbon sequestration. He is the son of the Center for the Study of CO2 and Climate Change's President Sherwood Idso and brother of VP Keith."

Well fancy that!

Yep, Heartland is seldom far away from a nice juicy denier story.

Shame they're so transparent, don't you think?

.........

SPQR,

Gosh you're having a good prance around this thread.

I assume Cossomby decided to post further because she realised we have "8" posts per day in the general section as opposed to "4" in the articles.