A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
News From The Global Warming War On The Environment
Again and again you make no argument, you merely make accusations with no foundation. "Faulty analysis"? Your data which refutes his is...??
None of your comments have any weight or content. Accusations without contrary evidence for support are just attempts at being obnoxious, in the same vein as "your mama wears cobat boots". Most of us left that behind when we hit 7th grade. Being obnoxious is the opposite of mounting an intelligent argument.
Where are your arguments? You quoted faulty articles, I pointed that out.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
FYI, the faulty analysis of NOAA data is obvious: you can take any 2 points on a graph and then claim there is a trend. It's faulty because the choice of these 2 points is arbitrary, intended only to prove a preconceived conclusion, not to support any valid scientific reasoning. Look at NOAA's websites directly, their climate.org section for instance has clear and simple explanation.
Martin, I always know how to draw you out... Good to see you're still around.
BTW, that straight line being drawn in your animated graph is intolerable to engineering minds. It ignores data that is out of bounds in a regression. I.e. it is prejudicial. What it wants to show is that the temperature is high now relative to earlier decades, which is OK. But it is not valid to do a straight line approximation of non-linear data. That is prejudicial, even if it is PC.
You've been talking about American politics alot recently, which bores me to tears because its a lost cause. But atheism, theism, and global warming will always bring out of the woodwork.
> it is not valid to do a straight line approximation of non-linear data.
The purpose is simply to show that claims that global warming has "stopped" are nothing more than the flat portion of the up escalator. Yes, they can be long, because climate is 50 years of weather averaged. So the noise can be measured in decades.
Martin, [I posted this to the wrong thread, so I copied it and relocated it here, too]
If you should go to climate.gov, per LiberalViewer's recommendation, the temperature graph there on the first page - if one assumes that it is really correct - shows the following "piecewise-linear" interpretation:
Further it shows a mere 0.6 degC rise in 63 years.
Further it gives no bands for margin of error.
Further CO2 has risen 26.8%, while temperature has risen probably only inside the margin of error.
Spring snow cover is greater in 2013 than in 1969.
Ocean heat energy has declined 5 times in nearly 6 decades, for periods of two years or greater, and was fairly consistent from 1955 - 1987; it rose from 1987 - 2004, then declined slightly and levelled off from 2004 - 2013. The graph suggests that the rise is 1 joules out of 1022 joules, or 0.98%. Most of that occured rapidly (5 year period) and then stopped inexplicably.
What say you about this? Hint: drawing straight lines is hazardous.
Btw, we are having a wonderful summer here: the cool season grasses are growing all summer long. There will definitely be a second and maybe third cutting of hay. It stays in the 70s most days with only a few venturing into the 80s. When we moved here 15 years back it was 105 during the day almost every day during August (nearly killed me, coming in from Oregon), and low 80s at night. I know, I know; it's just weather. But the straight line graph from then to now would be definitely downward for the heart of America.
LV, Since you present no data to disprove the websites which you judge AND you use the false Hitchensism as if it were a principle of logic (it is not: it is false in many cases), your comment once again contains no substance. Merely claiming something to be false does not make it false: it's merely an opinion. And that is your entire modus operandi: making unsubstantiated claims.
You point to a .gov website, as if whatever the government claims to be true, is, in fact, true. If the past five years have shown anything, it has shown that not to be the case. Further, dealing with academics has the same issue, if not worse due to their need to justify their existence, and the overwhlming Leftist activism which infests their ranks. Perhaps they are legitimate, perhaps they are desperate activists. Within the bounds of human nature and the nature of Leftism, I hold a healthy skepticism regarding both government and academic research.
For example it has just come out that the "harmless" vaccines pimped by researchers and the gov't were not so harmless, killing many girls. If you want to believe the gov't, be my guest.
So your reference to .gov won't be an argument anyway, it is merely a reference which you believe in, without any argument as to why. That's fine by me; you can believe whatever you wish - that is how libertarians differ from devout Leftists: you don't have to change as far as I care, you only need to not try to force me to your will.
I'm not exactly a libertarian in all regards; I'm more specifically an anti-Leftist-hegemony-ist. As well as a pro-logic-ist. So both of those personal preferences will grate on you, I imagine.
"You point to a .gov website, as if whatever the government claims to be true, is, in fact, true"
It has nothing to do with the fact that it's a .gov site. The author of the blog used the NOAA data yet presented arguments that contradicts NOAA's own conclusions. It does make sense to point to the actual NOAA (climate.GOV) site to show what the data actually means.
"you only need to not try to force me to your will."
You keep complaining about this regarding the Left, when in reality the Right is just as bad. Among each camp there are many factions that want to impose their views. Your attacks are just that, attacks.
In fact, I think there are more people on the Right who want to impose their views. The Left tends to agree with the Libertarian segment of the Right on that point. The obvious explanation is that the religious fanatics are the ones who are the worst at wanting to impose their views, and they are almost exclusively among the Right's ranks...
Did you look at Martin's animated image before writing that? You are doing the exact error that was illustrated on it...
If you want a solid argument, look at the graph that show models with and without human intervention, including the margin of error that you claimed is missing. This is one of the best graphic to summarize human driven climate change.
"I'm more specifically an anti-Leftist-hegemony-ist. As well as a pro-logic-ist. So both of those personal preferences will grate on you, I imagine."
Ridiculous. I agree with you on both. I am anti hegemony of any kind and obviously pro-logic. Calling your opponents anti-logic is a baseless ad hominem attack that only serves your own personal ego.
@Martin "You've been talking about American politics alot recently, which bores me to tears because its a lost cause."
Too bad, being cynical about politics and wanting to avoid discussion cannot possibly solve anything... or perhaps you mean that you don't like 'American' politics specifically; do you live in another country?
LV, " The Left tends to agree with the Libertarian segment of the Right on that point."
That is just wrong. The Left has forced people who do not want to spend their money on health care to do exactly that - or face huge fines, which if they don't pay criminalizes non-behavior. riminalizing non-behaviors started with the mis-use of the Commerce Clause in the Constitution, and has extended to thought crimes. The Left interferes in the lives of blacks by sustaining the Leftist ghetto plantations. The Left interferes with information to the low information population, specifically by preventing the use of ultrasound before abortion. The Left interferes in the lives of the largest minority with the weakest voice: by the killing of the unborn for convenience -and by forcing the taxpayers to support the killing organization(s).
You cannnot successfully claim any libertarian activities by the Left; you can only claim that the Left wants to be left alone to pursue their constant messiahist victim-oppressor codependency without interference.
It is true that the Left wants to be left alone and not criticized for its encroachments
LV, "Did you look at Martin's animated image before writing that? You are doing the exact error that was illustrated on it..."
Of course I did. I was demonstrating the fallacy. Do you read other comments here?
And here is the problem with belief in non-emprical nonscience:
"f you want a solid argument, look at the graph that show models with and without human intervention, including the margin of error that you claimed is missing. This is one of the best graphic to summarize human driven climate change."
First, the models are not empirical evidence; they are produced to make a specific point, one which is congenial to the concept being promoted. There is no actual data which shows the resulting climate without the contribution of human activity. That is fabricated.
There is significant data which is ignored in the pursuit of the official cant:
Quotes: (EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.
And,
"First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."
[Remember the ozone hole, and the linear extrapolation of that by hysterical environmentalists? No? Well I certainly do.]
None of these data points (and many more that I neglected to log myself) will be allowed in the journals, because the peers have declared that the science is settled: no dissent can possibly be allowed. And the only "good scientists" are the ones who agree, of course.
It is scientistic and political Leftism to claim that a linear future projection based on past data which sequesters contradiction is "truth" of any sort, especially when that "truth" is being used as a political weapon for globalist redistributionism. And that being done by some of the "scientists" themselves.
And if there is anything that the AtheoLeftist Skeptics are not allowing skepticism of - it is science which has Leftist political overtones.
LV said, "Ridiculous. I agree with you on both. I am anti hegemony of any kind and obviously pro-logic. Calling your opponents anti-logic is a baseless ad hominem attack that only serves your own personal ego."
Baseless? Your video attack on Palin shows specifically your lack of logical training and the use of multiple fallacies over and over: feel free to step in and show otherwise.
Further, the fact of the existence of the video shows an intent to do your part ot smear Palin with false innuendo and fallacious accusations: Leftist hegemony.
From my perspective the hegemony of the Left necessarily produces an oppositional hegemonic force from the Right - merely for preservation of the human rights guaranteed in the US COnstitution. That necessary oppoositional force makes libertarianism false, at least in its live/let live philosophy, because the constant encroachment from the Left must be fought in order to salvage those human rights. Libertarianism works only for a moral populace; the Left is auto-moral, making up their own morals to match their messiahist proclivities... which demand both a Victim Class and an Oppressor Class. This means that the Left will NEVER EVER stop interfering by maing baseless accusations regarding the morals of the Right: Racism charges will never EVER stop, because they are absolutely necessary to the Leftist Messiahism. Same for sexism, homophobia, and any Victim/oppressor categories which the Left can exploit - perpetually.
I wasn't making the case for human-caused global warming. Allow it to be false, if you like, for the sake of argument. I was only demonstrating the use of false graphs by the RIght in order to try to convince people that global warming stopped. Even if global warming is not true, it can't be shown false with this tactic.
The climate is very noisy, and the noise can be on the order of decades. Climate is defined as the weather averaged over 50 years. You can see in the graph how the temperature goes up and up, in a series of steps. The Right focuses on a step, and tries to say that this shows the temperature is not going up. This is fallacious.
>Too bad, being cynical about politics and wanting to avoid discussion cannot possibly solve anything... or perhaps you mean that you don't like 'American' politics specifically; do you live in another country?
The winner-take-all voting system in this country (USA), where the person who gets 51% of the vote gets 100% of the power, is a piss-poor voting system and leads to an inevitable two-party system. Eventually it leads to each party going so far into their respective corners that nothing gets done. This is why you have stuff like the Republicans hating Obamacare, even though it was their plan from the '90s! This is because instead of being implemented by Us, it was implemented by Them, so they have to hate it.
This is why you have people like McConnel saying that their number one priority is to make Obama a one term president. Instead of, you know, helping the country. Or, alternatively, if that quote from McConnell is ripped out of context, you have Democrats distorting the words of the Republicans in order to smear them.
This is why you have people on Rightwing blogs distorting information about global warming, and why you have environmentalists pointing to every weather event that occurs as evidence of global warming.
American politics is team sports. It's not about making the world a better place. It's about making sure our team wins, and their team loses, and that's the only goal. I'm convinced it will be the eventual downfall of this country and I refuse to participate in the stupidity of it. I encourage people to STOP voting in order to send a message that the entire system is broken. Of course, the two party oligarchy loves their power and are not going to let it change.
(1) Either you are the same LiberalViewer who referenced himself in the "LiberalViewer presents" videos meaning that your logic is quite faulty, or, (2) you are not LiberalViewer and you are a fraud.
Now which is it? Very faulty logic, or complete fraud?
You are of course, not here to discuss anything; you present no case, you present no defense for the sorry video, you are merely here to behave as juvenile as possible.
I think that you have stolen the LV moniker, because your behavior here is not up to even that irrational level.
Continue to comment here, perhaps others will engage you. I'm done with your silliness. If you become too obnoxious and violate the posted rules for behavior on this blog, you will be removed. (in fact, I actually believe that you are one of those who was previously removed, who has stolen an identity in order to come back for a short while).
Martin, The line graph does not show averaging over 50 years. It accumulates short term averages into data points, which are connected to form a line graph.
If a 50 year average is used, then the past 50 years should be shown as an average number and nothing more: just one number, not a line graph.
The use of 50 years as an arbitrary shut-up-and-accept-the-data device is quite convenient: none of the current culprits will be alive when the magic number 50 rolls around.
In the meantime, if neither the atmosphere nor the oceans are accumulating heat for a decade, even while the CO2 rises drastically, the noise level must be huge... HUGE. That means that the error band was unknown going into the 21st century. And probably right now.
Seriously. It's about fucking time. You thought that the guy behind the LiberalViewer channel, someone with 100k subscribers, would actually spend time on your insignificant blog? It goes both way you know. A conservative well spoken YouTuber like Lee Doren of 'How The World Works' (50k+ subscribers) would also not spend time with a lunatic like you.
Your comments, posts, really didn't bother me, I just responded in kind. What I found telling however was how you jumped all over me for the responses, but completely ignored your instigation.
I also feel it is telling that despite claim of me trolling or not addressing points, you won't have the courage to actually point out what you believe and why.
Frankly, I think this blog should stay up. It's an excellent example of how futile are the attempts to discredit the non-belief in the non-existent. However Stan you need to understand that you are not in control. You cannot simply decide who writes on the internet or not.
I re-used some of my own words this time. Can you follow the clues? You have been trolled Stan, like really really trolled. How does it feel?
How sad it must be to not be able to use one's mind for anything beneficial. The necessity of using deception seems to be totally embedded in the Left. In fact, lying seems to be the main feature of the Leftist, racist government which infests this nation currently. As I always try to remember to point out, if there is no truth, then there are no lies. At least in the mind of the morally challenged. That's because without truth, "it cannot be true that morals exist."
The concept of truth is annihilated when someone enters the Atheist VOID, where all principles are rejected, all absolutes from morality to truth to rationality.
The result is Consequentialist (and its derivatives) nonsense. The postion of the AtheoLeft is that any position will do so long as it is a pretention of superiority and control, and it is pompously declared more moral than those who recognize actual morality and attempt to live by it. (Alinsky).
The the Atheoleftist troll above is correct. The fools are in control of culture and government due to their ability to lie as if it were truth, and to make their ignorant-foolish followers believe it. What the fool does, and the other fools believe, is that their freedom to lie makes them superior somehow... in the Nietzschean sense. There is a false sense of power in lying, a feeling of control without actually having control, an ability to mislead without actually leading.
But the lack of the concept of truth in one's mind leads to rational atrophy. If no argument can be true, then all arguments are equally false and therefore it is only their utility which matters. And even the truth of utility finally collapses into conceptualized equal falseness: total ineptness of education, of governing, of guiding culture.
The intellectual power of the Lying Left is profoundly affected by their inability to tell that which is true from that which is not. And they think that no one else can discern the difference either.
Hence acadmics revel in "literary criticism" instead of actual pursuit of logical outcomes; refuse to answer what principles ground their arguments; self-select for like irrationality in their staff; refuse lecturers outside of their own ideology; humble themselves before no truth, but only before the power they receive through deception. Leftist academics have become merely absurd.
Hence the Leftist government cannot discern the consequences of its actions, massively stupid actions such as sending working weapons to druglords across the border; such as the profound failure of the Arab Spring; such as ignoring the defensive safety of the consulates in Arab Spring nations, even while walking more weapons into the hands of the enemies of truth and freedom; the ridiculous melodramas of purposeful government leaks vs. the persecution of whistleblowers and Inspectors General. The Left has become merely absurd.
That is why they are dangerous: they are not rational, there being no possible rationality without truth. Being irrational they are insane; and in control.
First, how do we know that the liar is not actually godless, when lying is part of the lack of truthfulness that attends Atheism? Well, we cannot know that (especially when the new moniker is a visual mnemonic for "godless"), and that's one of the reasons that Atheists cannot generate trust for themselves.
Second is the environment and culture as it stands; if you hate it, you can either merely rail against it; try to influence it from your small perch within it; or you can hide from it.
I do what I can to demonstrate the emptiness of the Atheist and Leftist moral and intellectual worldview, the rising Atheist and Leftist hegemony through government school maleducation, media influence in collapsing moral values, maintenance of poverty and social squalor on Leftist government ghetto plantations, all accompanied by faux moral preening and self-righteousness while accepting only personal desires as moral premises.
If you think the contrary, then you and/or anyone is invited to make an honest rational case for it... under the known discipline of logical deductive reasoning. I maintain that no AtheoLeftist can do that, and to date, none has.
If that is slinging "hate", then so be it: like many concepts in Leftism, "hate" has an all new meaning these days, and apparently I fit that new, perverse definition. Being so defined will not keep me from outlining the rational and moral abuses which the Left visits on the culture and their opponents. There is always the chance that someone, somewhere is choosing to learn how to think and how to analyze these things. At least I hope so.
Stan. Shocking. Your reaction to a troll who clearly succeeded in making you waste your time is to waste more time with a ridiculous comment generalizing the Left as liars? You deserved to be trolled then I suppose!
Right. You despise the Left and Atheists, we get that. But claiming that no one on that side can support their views is pure arrogance and delusion. You are the one who's not into debates. That's the only thing we can count on here.
Someone, You have merely asserted an excuse for either a complete lack of rational arguments to put forth, or cowardice. If you have an actual logical argument, let's see it.
What Atheists love to do rather than present disciplined logic is to present accusations.
There have been plenty of debates on this blog; many have been lengthy. Most have resulted in Atheists turning to invective when their illogic is demonstrated time and again, an eventuality which they seeminly cannot avoid.
You are right on one point, although in the wrong direction. I take pleasure engaging those who arrogantly claim rationality but who produce only empty, evidence-free irrationality, and that cloaked in false morality and false superiority. I do enjoy revealing that into the daylight.
Someone, You may argue against this if you have the stones:
The entire premise of Leftism is based on the lie that there exists a category of hyper-moral individuals who have clairvoyance in the science of humanity and who can save the benighted herd from itself by regulating not only their activities but also by equalizing their outcomes.
This proposition of "Progress", undefined as mere "Change", has been refuted by history, which is why history is no longer a substantial part of education - a Leftist lie of ommission and obfuscation.
Here are some current Leftist lies:
David Sirota is a "liberal" columnist who is just now having a revelation:
Here is an analysis of the racial lies and incitement by the Left's fave for president, Hillary Clinton: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324139404579013144182779468.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion
These are merely from this weeks news items; every week has new Leftist lies, from IRS to gunwalking; from DOJ to Benghazi; from "transparency" to cover-ups and persecution of whistleblowers - the list of Leftist lies is enormous.
For the left, the only lie is any statement which goes counter to the Leftist Narrative sacred mantra. Read your Alinsky; the Clintons did (Hillary wrote a college paper on it); Obama taught Alinsky as a "community organizer", the only job he ever held.
"The entire premise of Leftism is based on the lie that there exists a category of hyper-moral individuals who have clairvoyance in the science of humanity and who can save the benighted herd from itself by regulating not only their activities but also by equalizing their outcomes."
Thank you for asserting your ignorance. Debates are futile with someone who starts with such misconceptions, misunderstandings and total disregard for his opponents actual values, goals and background.
Now you will ask to support these assertions?
Read anybody who ever tried to talk to you in a civil manner, one day you might see how ridiculous your interpretation of others' positions is.
I have seen your civil manner; I use it as evidence. You have no argument with which to support your AtheoLeftism, so you make all these excuses: Gee I can't refute X so I can't have a civil conversation.
As with so many AtheoLeftists, you want to "converse" with someone who you can steamroll with false charges and nastiness. But you can't make any headway here, so you use false charges and nastiness to cover your inability to deal with actual analysis.
That is indicative of lack of intellectual force and lack of intellectual courage. Since you can't cope, how about one more round of baseless insults, and then go on back to your homies?
Or else, make a reasoned case, without insults. Can you do it? It is doubtful.
See, all you do is insult and support nothing. You just pretend you did already. Told you, there is nothing to talk about, just quoting you at some of your worst. And there's a lot of that!
30 comments:
You post 2 articles, one about an event getting no support and another from a blogger who decided to do his own faulty analysis of NOAA data.
Is that how you approach the topic of climate change?
Again and again you make no argument, you merely make accusations with no foundation. "Faulty analysis"? Your data which refutes his is...??
None of your comments have any weight or content. Accusations without contrary evidence for support are just attempts at being obnoxious, in the same vein as "your mama wears cobat boots". Most of us left that behind when we hit 7th grade. Being obnoxious is the opposite of mounting an intelligent argument.
Where are your arguments? You quoted faulty articles, I pointed that out.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
FYI, the faulty analysis of NOAA data is obvious: you can take any 2 points on a graph and then claim there is a trend. It's faulty because the choice of these 2 points is arbitrary, intended only to prove a preconceived conclusion, not to support any valid scientific reasoning. Look at NOAA's websites directly, their climate.org section for instance has clear and simple explanation.
* climate.gov *
This is known as going down the up escalator. It's just rhetoric from the Right.
Martin,
I always know how to draw you out... Good to see you're still around.
BTW, that straight line being drawn in your animated graph is intolerable to engineering minds. It ignores data that is out of bounds in a regression. I.e. it is prejudicial. What it wants to show is that the temperature is high now relative to earlier decades, which is OK. But it is not valid to do a straight line approximation of non-linear data. That is prejudicial, even if it is PC.
Heee!
You've been talking about American politics alot recently, which bores me to tears because its a lost cause. But atheism, theism, and global warming will always bring out of the woodwork.
> it is not valid to do a straight line approximation of non-linear data.
The purpose is simply to show that claims that global warming has "stopped" are nothing more than the flat portion of the up escalator. Yes, they can be long, because climate is 50 years of weather averaged. So the noise can be measured in decades.
Martin,
[I posted this to the wrong thread, so I copied it and relocated it here, too]
If you should go to climate.gov, per LiberalViewer's recommendation, the temperature graph there on the first page - if one assumes that it is really correct - shows the following "piecewise-linear" interpretation:
1950 - 1977 : flat.
1978 - 1986 : flat.
1988 - 1995 : flat.
1996 - 2001 : flat.
2002 - 2013 : flat.
Further it shows a mere 0.6 degC rise in 63 years.
Further it gives no bands for margin of error.
Further CO2 has risen 26.8%, while temperature has risen probably only inside the margin of error.
Spring snow cover is greater in 2013 than in 1969.
Ocean heat energy has declined 5 times in nearly 6 decades, for periods of two years or greater, and was fairly consistent from 1955 - 1987; it rose from 1987 - 2004, then declined slightly and levelled off from 2004 - 2013. The graph suggests that the rise is 1 joules out of 1022 joules, or 0.98%. Most of that occured rapidly (5 year period) and then stopped inexplicably.
What say you about this? Hint: drawing straight lines is hazardous.
Btw, we are having a wonderful summer here: the cool season grasses are growing all summer long. There will definitely be a second and maybe third cutting of hay. It stays in the 70s most days with only a few venturing into the 80s. When we moved here 15 years back it was 105 during the day almost every day during August (nearly killed me, coming in from Oregon), and low 80s at night. I know, I know; it's just weather. But the straight line graph from then to now would be definitely downward for the heart of America.
LV,
Since you present no data to disprove the websites which you judge AND you use the false Hitchensism as if it were a principle of logic (it is not: it is false in many cases), your comment once again contains no substance. Merely claiming something to be false does not make it false: it's merely an opinion. And that is your entire modus operandi: making unsubstantiated claims.
You point to a .gov website, as if whatever the government claims to be true, is, in fact, true. If the past five years have shown anything, it has shown that not to be the case. Further, dealing with academics has the same issue, if not worse due to their need to justify their existence, and the overwhlming Leftist activism which infests their ranks. Perhaps they are legitimate, perhaps they are desperate activists. Within the bounds of human nature and the nature of Leftism, I hold a healthy skepticism regarding both government and academic research.
For example it has just come out that the "harmless" vaccines pimped by researchers and the gov't were not so harmless, killing many girls. If you want to believe the gov't, be my guest.
So your reference to .gov won't be an argument anyway, it is merely a reference which you believe in, without any argument as to why. That's fine by me; you can believe whatever you wish - that is how libertarians differ from devout Leftists: you don't have to change as far as I care, you only need to not try to force me to your will.
I'm not exactly a libertarian in all regards; I'm more specifically an anti-Leftist-hegemony-ist. As well as a pro-logic-ist. So both of those personal preferences will grate on you, I imagine.
"You point to a .gov website, as if whatever the government claims to be true, is, in fact, true"
It has nothing to do with the fact that it's a .gov site. The author of the blog used the NOAA data yet presented arguments that contradicts NOAA's own conclusions. It does make sense to point to the actual NOAA (climate.GOV) site to show what the data actually means.
"you only need to not try to force me to your will."
You keep complaining about this regarding the Left, when in reality the Right is just as bad. Among each camp there are many factions that want to impose their views. Your attacks are just that, attacks.
In fact, I think there are more people on the Right who want to impose their views. The Left tends to agree with the Libertarian segment of the Right on that point. The obvious explanation is that the religious fanatics are the ones who are the worst at wanting to impose their views, and they are almost exclusively among the Right's ranks...
"1950 - 1977 : flat.
1978 - 1986 : flat.
1988 - 1995 : flat.
1996 - 2001 : flat.
2002 - 2013 : flat. "
Did you look at Martin's animated image before writing that? You are doing the exact error that was illustrated on it...
If you want a solid argument, look at the graph that show models with and without human intervention, including the margin of error that you claimed is missing. This is one of the best graphic to summarize human driven climate change.
"I'm more specifically an anti-Leftist-hegemony-ist. As well as a pro-logic-ist. So both of those personal preferences will grate on you, I imagine."
Ridiculous. I agree with you on both. I am anti hegemony of any kind and obviously pro-logic. Calling your opponents anti-logic is a baseless ad hominem attack that only serves your own personal ego.
@Martin
"You've been talking about American politics alot recently, which bores me to tears because its a lost cause."
Too bad, being cynical about politics and wanting to avoid discussion cannot possibly solve anything... or perhaps you mean that you don't like 'American' politics specifically; do you live in another country?
LV,
" The Left tends to agree with the Libertarian segment of the Right on that point."
That is just wrong. The Left has forced people who do not want to spend their money on health care to do exactly that - or face huge fines, which if they don't pay criminalizes non-behavior. riminalizing non-behaviors started with the mis-use of the Commerce Clause in the Constitution, and has extended to thought crimes. The Left interferes in the lives of blacks by sustaining the Leftist ghetto plantations. The Left interferes with information to the low information population, specifically by preventing the use of ultrasound before abortion. The Left interferes in the lives of the largest minority with the weakest voice: by the killing of the unborn for convenience -and by forcing the taxpayers to support the killing organization(s).
You cannnot successfully claim any libertarian activities by the Left; you can only claim that the Left wants to be left alone to pursue their constant messiahist victim-oppressor codependency without interference.
It is true that the Left wants to be left alone and not criticized for its encroachments
LV,
"Did you look at Martin's animated image before writing that? You are doing the exact error that was illustrated on it..."
Of course I did. I was demonstrating the fallacy. Do you read other comments here?
And here is the problem with belief in non-emprical nonscience:
"f you want a solid argument, look at the graph that show models with and without human intervention, including the margin of error that you claimed is missing. This is one of the best graphic to summarize human driven climate change."
First, the models are not empirical evidence; they are produced to make a specific point, one which is congenial to the concept being promoted. There is no actual data which shows the resulting climate without the contribution of human activity. That is fabricated.
There is significant data which is ignored in the pursuit of the official cant:
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2012/07/lets-hear-it-from-global-cooling.html
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2011/08/arctic-tipping-point-may-not-be-reached.html
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/30639457.html
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2011/06/quote-of-day-061611.html
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2011/02/more-agw-information-stable-weather.html
http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/11/is-al-gore-wrong-on-the-environment-global-warming-is-not-to-blame-for-snow/
http://reason.com/blog/2010/12/09/clouds-and-climate-confusion
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2010/12/climate-wizards-at-cancun.html
My favorite is this one which contains the ultimate Leftist redistributionist objective admission:
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2010/11/quote-of-day-ipcc-and-wealth.html
Quotes:
(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.
And,
"First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."
[Remember the ozone hole, and the linear extrapolation of that by hysterical environmentalists? No? Well I certainly do.]
None of these data points (and many more that I neglected to log myself) will be allowed in the journals, because the peers have declared that the science is settled: no dissent can possibly be allowed. And the only "good scientists" are the ones who agree, of course.
It is scientistic and political Leftism to claim that a linear future projection based on past data which sequesters contradiction is "truth" of any sort, especially when that "truth" is being used as a political weapon for globalist redistributionism. And that being done by some of the "scientists" themselves.
And if there is anything that the AtheoLeftist Skeptics are not allowing skepticism of - it is science which has Leftist political overtones.
LV said,
"Ridiculous. I agree with you on both. I am anti hegemony of any kind and obviously pro-logic. Calling your opponents anti-logic is a baseless ad hominem attack that only serves your own personal ego."
Baseless? Your video attack on Palin shows specifically your lack of logical training and the use of multiple fallacies over and over: feel free to step in and show otherwise.
Further, the fact of the existence of the video shows an intent to do your part ot smear Palin with false innuendo and fallacious accusations: Leftist hegemony.
From my perspective the hegemony of the Left necessarily produces an oppositional hegemonic force from the Right - merely for preservation of the human rights guaranteed in the US COnstitution. That necessary oppoositional force makes libertarianism false, at least in its live/let live philosophy, because the constant encroachment from the Left must be fought in order to salvage those human rights. Libertarianism works only for a moral populace; the Left is auto-moral, making up their own morals to match their messiahist proclivities... which demand both a Victim Class and an Oppressor Class. This means that the Left will NEVER EVER stop interfering by maing baseless accusations regarding the morals of the Right: Racism charges will never EVER stop, because they are absolutely necessary to the Leftist Messiahism. Same for sexism, homophobia, and any Victim/oppressor categories which the Left can exploit - perpetually.
Stan,
I wasn't making the case for human-caused global warming. Allow it to be false, if you like, for the sake of argument. I was only demonstrating the use of false graphs by the RIght in order to try to convince people that global warming stopped. Even if global warming is not true, it can't be shown false with this tactic.
The climate is very noisy, and the noise can be on the order of decades. Climate is defined as the weather averaged over 50 years. You can see in the graph how the temperature goes up and up, in a series of steps. The Right focuses on a step, and tries to say that this shows the temperature is not going up. This is fallacious.
LiberalViewer,
>Too bad, being cynical about politics and wanting to avoid discussion cannot possibly solve anything... or perhaps you mean that you don't like 'American' politics specifically; do you live in another country?
The winner-take-all voting system in this country (USA), where the person who gets 51% of the vote gets 100% of the power, is a piss-poor voting system and leads to an inevitable two-party system. Eventually it leads to each party going so far into their respective corners that nothing gets done. This is why you have stuff like the Republicans hating Obamacare, even though it was their plan from the '90s! This is because instead of being implemented by Us, it was implemented by Them, so they have to hate it.
This is why you have people like McConnel saying that their number one priority is to make Obama a one term president. Instead of, you know, helping the country. Or, alternatively, if that quote from McConnell is ripped out of context, you have Democrats distorting the words of the Republicans in order to smear them.
This is why you have people on Rightwing blogs distorting information about global warming, and why you have environmentalists pointing to every weather event that occurs as evidence of global warming.
American politics is team sports. It's not about making the world a better place. It's about making sure our team wins, and their team loses, and that's the only goal. I'm convinced it will be the eventual downfall of this country and I refuse to participate in the stupidity of it. I encourage people to STOP voting in order to send a message that the entire system is broken. Of course, the two party oligarchy loves their power and are not going to let it change.
"Your video attack on Palin shows"
Who said it was my video?
LV,
There are just two possibilities here.
(1) Either you are the same LiberalViewer who referenced himself in the "LiberalViewer presents" videos meaning that your logic is quite faulty, or,
(2) you are not LiberalViewer and you are a fraud.
Now which is it? Very faulty logic, or complete fraud?
You are of course, not here to discuss anything; you present no case, you present no defense for the sorry video, you are merely here to behave as juvenile as possible.
I think that you have stolen the LV moniker, because your behavior here is not up to even that irrational level.
Continue to comment here, perhaps others will engage you. I'm done with your silliness. If you become too obnoxious and violate the posted rules for behavior on this blog, you will be removed. (in fact, I actually believe that you are one of those who was previously removed, who has stolen an identity in order to come back for a short while).
Martin,
The line graph does not show averaging over 50 years. It accumulates short term averages into data points, which are connected to form a line graph.
If a 50 year average is used, then the past 50 years should be shown as an average number and nothing more: just one number, not a line graph.
The use of 50 years as an arbitrary shut-up-and-accept-the-data device is quite convenient: none of the current culprits will be alive when the magic number 50 rolls around.
In the meantime, if neither the atmosphere nor the oceans are accumulating heat for a decade, even while the CO2 rises drastically, the noise level must be huge... HUGE. That means that the error band was unknown going into the 21st century. And probably right now.
ABORT MISSION! I REPEAT. ABORT MISSION!
Seriously. It's about fucking time. You thought that the guy behind the LiberalViewer channel, someone with 100k subscribers, would actually spend time on your insignificant blog? It goes both way you know. A conservative well spoken YouTuber like Lee Doren of 'How The World Works' (50k+ subscribers) would also not spend time with a lunatic like you.
Your comments, posts, really didn't bother me, I just responded in kind. What I found telling however was how you jumped all over me for the responses, but completely ignored your instigation.
I also feel it is telling that despite claim of me trolling or not addressing points, you won't have the courage to actually point out what you believe and why.
Frankly, I think this blog should stay up. It's an excellent example of how futile are the attempts to discredit the non-belief in the non-existent. However Stan you need to understand that you are not in control. You cannot simply decide who writes on the internet or not.
I re-used some of my own words this time. Can you follow the clues?
You have been trolled Stan, like really really trolled. How does it feel?
--g**1355
How sad it must be to not be able to use one's mind for anything beneficial. The necessity of using deception seems to be totally embedded in the Left. In fact, lying seems to be the main feature of the Leftist, racist government which infests this nation currently. As I always try to remember to point out, if there is no truth, then there are no lies. At least in the mind of the morally challenged. That's because without truth, "it cannot be true that morals exist."
The concept of truth is annihilated when someone enters the Atheist VOID, where all principles are rejected, all absolutes from morality to truth to rationality.
The result is Consequentialist (and its derivatives) nonsense. The postion of the AtheoLeft is that any position will do so long as it is a pretention of superiority and control, and it is pompously declared more moral than those who recognize actual morality and attempt to live by it. (Alinsky).
The the Atheoleftist troll above is correct. The fools are in control of culture and government due to their ability to lie as if it were truth, and to make their ignorant-foolish followers believe it. What the fool does, and the other fools believe, is that their freedom to lie makes them superior somehow... in the Nietzschean sense. There is a false sense of power in lying, a feeling of control without actually having control, an ability to mislead without actually leading.
But the lack of the concept of truth in one's mind leads to rational atrophy. If no argument can be true, then all arguments are equally false and therefore it is only their utility which matters. And even the truth of utility finally collapses into conceptualized equal falseness: total ineptness of education, of governing, of guiding culture.
The intellectual power of the Lying Left is profoundly affected by their inability to tell that which is true from that which is not. And they think that no one else can discern the difference either.
Hence acadmics revel in "literary criticism" instead of actual pursuit of logical outcomes; refuse to answer what principles ground their arguments; self-select for like irrationality in their staff; refuse lecturers outside of their own ideology; humble themselves before no truth, but only before the power they receive through deception. Leftist academics have become merely absurd.
Hence the Leftist government cannot discern the consequences of its actions, massively stupid actions such as sending working weapons to druglords across the border; such as the profound failure of the Arab Spring; such as ignoring the defensive safety of the consulates in Arab Spring nations, even while walking more weapons into the hands of the enemies of truth and freedom; the ridiculous melodramas of purposeful government leaks vs. the persecution of whistleblowers and Inspectors General. The Left has become merely absurd.
That is why they are dangerous: they are not rational, there being no possible rationality without truth. Being irrational they are insane; and in control.
See what I mean?
Stan and LiberaViewere/NotReallyLiberalViewer are playing the game of hating their respective Others.
And the two-party oligarchy LOVES them for it. It will keep them in power for a very long time!
Hey Martin,
Have you considered that by NOT voting, more weight is actually lent to those that DO vote (ie Stan and NotLiberalViewer).
Although I'm really just posting (assuming Stan lets it go through) to point out that --g**1355 is not godless.
godless makes two good points:
First, how do we know that the liar is not actually godless, when lying is part of the lack of truthfulness that attends Atheism? Well, we cannot know that (especially when the new moniker is a visual mnemonic for "godless"), and that's one of the reasons that Atheists cannot generate trust for themselves.
Second is the environment and culture as it stands; if you hate it, you can either merely rail against it; try to influence it from your small perch within it; or you can hide from it.
I do what I can to demonstrate the emptiness of the Atheist and Leftist moral and intellectual worldview, the rising Atheist and Leftist hegemony through government school maleducation, media influence in collapsing moral values, maintenance of poverty and social squalor on Leftist government ghetto plantations, all accompanied by faux moral preening and self-righteousness while accepting only personal desires as moral premises.
If you think the contrary, then you and/or anyone is invited to make an honest rational case for it... under the known discipline of logical deductive reasoning. I maintain that no AtheoLeftist can do that, and to date, none has.
If that is slinging "hate", then so be it: like many concepts in Leftism, "hate" has an all new meaning these days, and apparently I fit that new, perverse definition. Being so defined will not keep me from outlining the rational and moral abuses which the Left visits on the culture and their opponents. There is always the chance that someone, somewhere is choosing to learn how to think and how to analyze these things. At least I hope so.
Stan. Shocking. Your reaction to a troll who clearly succeeded in making you waste your time is to waste more time with a ridiculous comment generalizing the Left as liars? You deserved to be trolled then I suppose!
Right. You despise the Left and Atheists, we get that. But claiming that no one on that side can support their views is pure arrogance and delusion. You are the one who's not into debates. That's the only thing we can count on here.
Someone,
You have merely asserted an excuse for either a complete lack of rational arguments to put forth, or cowardice. If you have an actual logical argument, let's see it.
What Atheists love to do rather than present disciplined logic is to present accusations.
There have been plenty of debates on this blog; many have been lengthy. Most have resulted in Atheists turning to invective when their illogic is demonstrated time and again, an eventuality which they seeminly cannot avoid.
You are right on one point, although in the wrong direction. I take pleasure engaging those who arrogantly claim rationality but who produce only empty, evidence-free irrationality, and that cloaked in false morality and false superiority. I do enjoy revealing that into the daylight.
Someone,
You may argue against this if you have the stones:
The entire premise of Leftism is based on the lie that there exists a category of hyper-moral individuals who have clairvoyance in the science of humanity and who can save the benighted herd from itself by regulating not only their activities but also by equalizing their outcomes.
This proposition of "Progress", undefined as mere "Change", has been refuted by history, which is why history is no longer a substantial part of education - a Leftist lie of ommission and obfuscation.
Here are some current Leftist lies:
David Sirota is a "liberal" columnist who is just now having a revelation:
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/16/what_if_the_president_lied_to_us/singleton/
Here is a homosexual who is questioning one of the homosexual lies:
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/just_how_natural_is_homosexuality/13918#.UhNfbpKTiwB
Here is an analysis of the racial lies and incitement by the Left's fave for president, Hillary Clinton:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324139404579013144182779468.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion
These are merely from this weeks news items; every week has new Leftist lies, from IRS to gunwalking; from DOJ to Benghazi; from "transparency" to cover-ups and persecution of whistleblowers - the list of Leftist lies is enormous.
For the left, the only lie is any statement which goes counter to the Leftist Narrative sacred mantra. Read your Alinsky; the Clintons did (Hillary wrote a college paper on it); Obama taught Alinsky as a "community organizer", the only job he ever held.
"The entire premise of Leftism is based on the lie that there exists a category of hyper-moral individuals who have clairvoyance in the science of humanity and who can save the benighted herd from itself by regulating not only their activities but also by equalizing their outcomes."
Thank you for asserting your ignorance. Debates are futile with someone who starts with such misconceptions, misunderstandings and total disregard for his opponents actual values, goals and background.
Now you will ask to support these assertions?
Read anybody who ever tried to talk to you in a civil manner, one day you might see how ridiculous your interpretation of others' positions is.
Yes, quoter/LV/NRLV/Facts/sockpuppetdujour,
I have seen your civil manner; I use it as evidence. You have no argument with which to support your AtheoLeftism, so you make all these excuses: Gee I can't refute X so I can't have a civil conversation.
As with so many AtheoLeftists, you want to "converse" with someone who you can steamroll with false charges and nastiness. But you can't make any headway here, so you use false charges and nastiness to cover your inability to deal with actual analysis.
That is indicative of lack of intellectual force and lack of intellectual courage. Since you can't cope, how about one more round of baseless insults, and then go on back to your homies?
Or else, make a reasoned case, without insults. Can you do it? It is doubtful.
See, all you do is insult and support nothing. You just pretend you did already. Told you, there is nothing to talk about, just quoting you at some of your worst. And there's a lot of that!
Post a Comment