Buddy Rogers and Misleading Arguments

Post Reply
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Buddy Rogers and Misleading Arguments

Post by Dardedar »

Larry Woodall passed along a column that has been published in response to Art's column posted here. It's written by Buddy Rogers who is a financial adviser. Knowledge about financial advice is kind of like climate science isn't it? Yes I think so, that's sounds right anyway.

His article is contained in the NWAonline archives (you have to ask) but I encourage you to spare yourself the pain and trouble and just read my line by line rebuttal to his semi-substantive bits which follows directly below. Most of his article is contained in my critique.
COMMENTARY: Arguments Often Misleading
By BUDDY ROGERS
Monday, September 6, 2010
NWA Newspapers

Most Americans, not an “anti-scientific minority,” remain unconvinced of claims that human activity is the major cause of global warming. An examination of the rhetoric and argumentation of Professor Emeritus Arthur Hobson’s recent commentary illustrates why.

The essay is typical political propaganda, not science. It ignores cogent objections to man-made (anthropogenic) global warming (AGW) dogma, cherry picks data, and spins disaster scenarios. It even begins with a whopper of a logical fallacy - argumentum ad hominen - attacking opponents as unscientific, rather than addressing the merits of their arguments.

Often such rhetorical malpractice is used to close off thought, argument and investigation..."

[...redacted...]

BUDDY ROGERS IS A FINANCIAL ADVISER BASED IN ROGERS AND A FORMER CANDIDATE FOR U.S. SENATE.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 09/06/2010
***

Roast follows below.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Buddy Rogers and Misleading Arguments

Post by Dardedar »

DAR
Let's unpack Mr. Rogers material and see how it holds up. In his title he boldly claims Dr. Hobson's "Arguments Often Misleading." Let's see if he can back that up.
BUD
Most Americans, not an “anti-scientific minority,” remain unconvinced of claims that human activity is the major cause of global warming.
DAR
Let's be frank, Buddy is the epitome of this "anti-scientific" crowd he speaks of. I say this because his article is littered from beginning to end with all of the standard cliche' misunderstandings of climate change that the most pedestrian global warming deniers have been peddling from the beginning. His errors are so basic and rudimentary they reveal he hasn't done a moment of research to check and see if his claims are true. He just naively repeats this misinformation he has heard, blissfully unaware (let's hope) of how ridiculously false it is.
Whether Buddy's anti-scientific position is shared by a minority or a majority of the American public is entirely irrelevant to the truth of the claim (ad populum fallacy), so I'll just ignore it.
BUD
The essay is typical political propaganda, not science. It ignores cogent objections to man-made (anthropogenic) global warming (AGW) dogma, cherry picks data, and spins disaster scenarios. It even begins with a whopper of a logical fallacy - argumentum ad hominen - attacking opponents as unscientific, rather than addressing the merits of their arguments.
DAR
More bold claims, zero substance yet. And first a pet peeve. If you are going to throw Latin phrases around to look smart then at least learn to spell them correctly (it's argumentum ad hominem). And once you've got that down, take a little more time and learn when they apply and when they don't. The ad hominem fallacy applies when you substitute argumentation with a personal attack. Dr. Hobson hasn't done that so he has not committed this fallacy. Pointing out that there is a "powerful anti-scientific minority of Americans" led by Senator Inhofe is a statement of fact. Pointing out that Buddy Rogers is terribly, profoundly, misinformed on the subject of climate change is also an observation I make, correctly, based upon easily demonstrable facts which are provided below, carefully referenced.
BUD
[Hobson's essay] could have presented argument for ignoring the antiscientific behavior of scientists (most infamously at East Anglia University) who suppressed inconvenient findings.
DAR
Buddy provides not a scrap of evidence in support of this assertion. He needs to update his propaganda. The scientific inquiries have been completed, the reports are in. Along with some minor caveats regarding sloppiness and some suggestions "an inquiry panel of leading scientists, nominated by the Royal Society,... concluded:

"We found them to be objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda.
"Their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as possible." Link

"no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit." Link

"A separate review by Penn State University into accusations against Michael E. Mann cleared him of any wrongdoing, stating that "there is no substance" to the allegations against him." Link PDF

"...the independent Science Assessment Panel... [found] absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever" and that "whatever was said in the emails, the basic science seems to have been done fairly and properly." He said that many of the criticisms and allegations of scientific misconduct had been made by people "who do not like the implications of some of the conclusions" reached by the CRU's scientists."

"...despite a deluge of allegations and smears against the CRU, this independent group of utterly reputable scientists have concluded that there was no evidence of any scientific malpractice."

The assertion that "inconvenient findings" were suppressed is a dishonest smear, now debunked by careful scientific review and only spread by those like Buddy who have a political agenda and lack knowledge of the facts of this case and the science in question. At this point the respectable people in media who have spread misinformation on this are apologizing. Is Buddy going to apologize for spreading misinformation? He should.
BUD
[Hobson's article] could have dealt forthrightly with the politicians’ misuse of the IPCC study...
DAR
Buddy provides no examples of "politicians misuse of the IPCC study." What politicians do is entirely irrelevant to science in question anyway.
BUD
[Hobson's article] could have disavowed the shallow opportunism of Al Gore, while making a logical case that Senator Imhofe[sic] should be considered as bad.
DAR
Buddy throws out the smear against Gore of "shallow opportunism" but he doesn't even attempt to back it up with a single example or reference. I am still waiting for someone to throw something at Al Gore that isn't based upon misinformation and more often, lies. I'll just point out that there is a reason why Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts and there is a reason why Inhofe will never have such and honor and instead will mostly receive well deserved derision.
BUD
Deceptive as it was, the essay was as good a pro-AGW argument as I’ve seen published.
DAR
Buddy does not even attempt to provide a single example of deception. So who is being deceptive? I agree Art's article was quite good. So when is Buddy going to provide a single example of these "Arguments Often Misleading" he promised us in his heading?
BUD
...according to a recent Rasmussen poll, 67 percent of Americans are unconvinced that humans cause global warming.
DAR
Buddy doesn't know how the ad hominem fallacy works (or how to spell it) but if he would like to learn a new Latin phrase correctly this time he might take the opportunity to familiarize himself with the Argumentum ad populum fallacy. I say this because he just committed it with bells on. Truth is not determined by how many people hold a certain belief. The American public is profoundly illiterate on scientific issues and this is especially compounded on the topic of climate change. As Dr. Hobson already pointed out this is largely because of an army of misinformed political hacks like Buddy Rogers who go around repeating mind numbingly bogus anti-scientific arguments that they neither understand nor care to take the time to try and understand.

Knowledge is specialized and this is especially the case with the complex subject of climatology. You don't consult a plumber about tuning a piano and you don't poll the American public to determine whether or not climate change is occurring. That's just dumb.
BUD
Skeptics are the majority. But they are not anti-scientific.
DAR
Almost without exception they are. Among those with specialized training in this field, the understanding that the earth is warming and humans are largely responsible is, with known degrees of uncertainty, settled science. I'll limit myself to three examples:

1) "[A] survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role." Link

2) "All "scientific bod[ies] of national or international standing [agree with] the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.” Link

Notice "all of them."

3) "A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[87] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003,... none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable." Link

This is an extremely strong consensus. Maybe Buddy who is trained in financial advice is right and all of these trained climatologists and scientific institutions are wrong. I don't think reasonable people are going to think this is very likely.
BUD
Most recognize that CO2 clearly can be a greenhouse gas, albeita minor and inefficient one.
DAR
Buddy reveals his ignorance with this astonishing howler. How CO2 works to warm the earth was discovered in 1824 and was well studied and confirmed beyond dispute by 1896. Buddy's misinformation is so bad it's more than a century out of date! Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist with NASA says of CO2: "Without it, we'd be 33 degrees Celsius colder than we are."

Buddy may not know about Celsius is since he lives in the only country on the planet that doesn't still doesn't use the metric system, so let's help him out. If it's a nice balmy 24 degrees Celsius (75.2 Fahrenheit) and we drop the temperature 33 degrees Celsius, we are now 15 degrees Fahrenheit. Without CO2, our balmy day just became 17F degrees below freezing. Since when is that a "minor and inefficient" greenhouse gas?! Buddy needs to update his talking points and maybe he should get informed about such basics BEFORE he writes columns in the newspaper and makes a fool of himself.
BUD
But they await an explanation of how man’s contribution of CO2, about 3 to 4 percent of atmospheric CO2, drives severe climate change,
DAR
This is misleading at best. C02 is a trace gas representing a tiny .04% of the earth's atmosphere (again completely refuting the notion that it's minor or inefficient). Importantly, nearly all of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last century or so, is "man's contribution." We know this by measuring isotopes and a host of other methods. Buddy might stop repeating talking points and educate himself about the science of how we know humans have raised our CO2 concentrations to the highest levels in about two million years. Here's a good place to start:

How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities?
BUD
when water vapor accounts for about 95 percent of the greenhouse effect and is over 99 percent naturally caused. Water vapor is, for AGW advocates, an inconvenient truth. So they ignore it.
DAR
Completely wrong. Every single comprehensive study of the earth's climate is going to (of course) include contribution from water vapor. Buddy again reveals he knows nearly nothing of this subject. For an introductory explanation see here. This Scientific American article is also quite easy to understand. Of the "Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense" they chose make the one you are passing along here #1.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... n-nonsense
BUD
The majority wonders how it is that global temperatures dropped from the 1940s through the 1970s, with atmospheric CO2 rising.
DAR
Well this majority you keep speaking of are like you, having no training whatsoever in climatology. So we won't ask them. Instead, best to look to the science. See here and What About Mid-Century Cooling? for a quick introduction.
BUD
Many recall how an early generation of inept or unethical scientists proclaimed man-made global cooling in the 1970’s.
DAR
Wrong again. Your claim is false yet a common canard passed around by deniers who haven't checked their claims. It's a favorite of commentator George Will. He isn't a climatologist either. Note:

"The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyze, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming."

Image

Your claims stems from a single article in Newsweek. It's best to not get your science from coffee table news magazines, even when they are now, 35 years old.
BUD
That error doesn’t mean AGW proponents are wrong now.
DAR
No, it wouldn't. But as shown, the error was yours. The consensus in the 1970's was very strongly for warming.
BUD
But the media campaigns, the disaster scenarios, and the politics of personal destruction leveled against dissenters are not usually tactics of those who believe they have truth on their side.
DAR
Again, lots of assertions, not a single example to back it up. When are you going to get to those "Arguments Often Misleading" in Dr. Hobson's article? If they occur "often" you shouldn't have any trouble finding one. Why haven't you tried to show one yet?
BUD
Many skeptics know that the “Medieval Warming Period” was airbrushed out of the “hockey stick” chart that AGW fans loved so long.
DAR
Of course no denier discussion would be complete without an ignorant snort about at the hockey stick. That's #2 in the above mentioned Scientific American article. Basically, all climate charts give us hockey sticks, you can make yourself aware of at least 10 others studies here. There are many others. They're all hockey sticks and we live on the blade. Note:

"The truth is that whichever version of PCA you use, the hockey-stick shaped PC is one of the statistically significant patterns. There’s a reason for that: the hockey-stick shaped pattern is in the data, and it’s not just noise it’s signal." Link
BUD
That long warming period - unaccompanied by an increase in man made CO2 - simply disappeared.
DAR
Wrong again. To begin with, it was regional, not global. Get informed.
BUD
Not only does this falsification result in overstating the influence of CO2, but it also makes any benefits of warming - that’s when Greenland earned its name as a lush and fertile agricultural land - vanish.
DAR
And now we get Greenland anecdotes from Erik the Red, "who was in exile and wanted to attract people to a new colony. He believed that you should give a land a good name so that people want to go there!

What the science says...

"The Greenland ice sheet has existed for at least 400,000 years. There may have been regions of Greenland that were 'greener' than today but this was not a global phenomenon."

See Greenland Used to be Green. Another standard denier canard.
BUD
We skeptics want to know how CO2 is the major cause,when its increase has sometimes followed or coincided with increased temperatures as well as sometimes preceding them.
DAR
Well then you should read what climatologist have published for your benefit on this subject. Here are some links to help you out:

What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

CO2 Lags Not Leads

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

When you are through with those, there are lots more.
BUD
But we skeptics are open to being convinced. But by science, not by name calling, hysteria or ignoring inconvenient data and explanations.
DAR
You haven't shown a single example of "data and explanations" being ignored. You have only demonstrated that you can pass along the standard denier arguments that any high school novice can debunk in a few key strokes. When are you going to treat us to one of those "Arguments Often Misleading" in Dr. Hobson's article? Time is almost up and you haven't even tried.
BUD
Further many of us suspect that AGW is primarily convenient cover for another expansion of federal power.
DAR
No one is interested in what your politics lead you to "suspect" but rather what you can show regarding the science in question. So far you have only shown that you don't have even a rudimentary understanding of the science of climate change. As anyone can see, this stands in sharp contrast to Dr. Hobson's knowledge of the issue (and mine).
BUD
We remember how the real problems with our health care system went unaddressed, alternative plans ignored, and the people’s will subverted, all to justify passing a monstrous and counter-productive health care “reform” bill.
DAR
And now you want to talk about health care? How does that address Dr. Hobson's article?
BUD
Americans will use our freedom to decide individually,
DAR
No, America is a country of 330 million people and some things have to be done collectively. Addressing the problems brought about by climate change is one of those things we'll have to deal with collectively. But do feel free to help out individually. Perhaps buy a Prius. That's what I did.
BUD
despite the arrogance of a selfdefined elite, whether academic, media or whatever. Honest debate is welcome - no demanded.
DAR
Excellent. When would you like to begin the "honest debate?" You will need to leave at home all of this dishonest junk you brought along this time. You claimed Dr. Hobson's arguments are often misleading yet you can't provide a single example. You don't even try. That's not honest. To debate this topic you would first need to gain an introductory understanding of the issue. You haven't done that. You've only shown you can repeat easily refuted talking points that have nothing to do with science. That's not honest and it's not useful.
BUD
The genius of the American experiment, validated for over 200 years, is that all of us are wiser than any “elite” group of us Scientists must act like scientists, testing hypotheses, showing their work and leaving agendas at home.
DAR
Yes, that would have gotten us to the moon in 1969 and probably cured polio too. It's not "elite" scientists with "agendas" we need but rather Americans testing things at home, perhaps around the kitchen table, with vinegar and backing soda. Science is fun! Sorry, the idea that climatology is something the nonspecialist or complete novice can do at home is too ridiculous to even ridicule. I gave it my best shot.
BUD
And the media must report scientific controversies with balance and accuracy.
DAR
Well there's always Fox News, I hear they're fair and balanced. Oh wait, here is 42 pages of links showing them and their ilk getting it all wrong on climate science. Hey, that's just like you! No wonder Americans are so confused. Or is it willful ignorance? It has to be at this point. Surely all of the honest GW deniers left your sinking boat some time ago.
BUD
Then, we the people will decide, through our individual actions, and we will decide wisely.
DAR
Do you mean wisely in the sense that you wrote your ridiculous, error filled article? I hope not. That wasn't very wise.

Careful readers will note that while you never did get around to giving us a single example of "Arguments Often Misleading" in Dr. Hobson's article you did hoist upon us a great pile of your own misleading arguments. Pathetic.

D.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Buddy Rogers and Misleading Arguments

Post by Dardedar »

Now the ankle biters. From the comment thread at NWAonline:
X3 says:
"fayfreethinker, I DID enjoy that. What a farce.
Global warming stopped being a scientific issue YEARS ago...it's now completely political.

I could rebut both Hobson's comments and yours, but it's not worth the effort. No amount of evidence will alter your viewpoint. I know, I know, you'll say that there IS no evidence outside of what supports your viewpoint, which is patently ridiculous....we have studied other topics for MUCH longer than global warming and the science still isn't settled to the extent that the media and politicians would have us believe it is about global warming. Evolution is a good example.

So, when you decide to let facts shape your viewpoint instead of the other way around, let me know, and then we can discuss this issue."
--LINK
DAR
Not so. I adjust my viewpoint to comport exactly with the best evidence. But you didn't even try to bring any evidence with you and this wasn't by accident. Sorry if your claim of "I could rebut" is not persuasive. There are no good GW denier arguments. They're all junk. When you can muster the effort to put something together, don't hesitate to share. We have lots of room on our freethinker forum and it's been years since anyone has provided an argument from your position that couldn't be flattened in minutes. Try it and see.

Buddy's article is just a dog and pony show of the most ridiculous denier arguments, most of which he clearly doesn't understand. If you think you can defend his claims I encourage you to make the attempt.

If you would like to learn about evolution, we have experts in biology, chemistry and physics standing by who can walk you through that too. That one was settled about 150 years ago regardless of what the Gallup poll said or your financial adviser might have told you.

D.

***

More from X3:
X3: "So you say that you'll listen to evidence, even if it doesn't support your viewpoint, then you claim there is none...">>
DAR
(Actually, I didn't claim there are none, I said there weren't any good ones. There is a difference).

I say that having considered all of the denial arguments. They're all junk. Again, would you like to try one and see or are you just going wax on with political musings and vague unreferenced assertions? The truth is in the details. When would you like to start? Do you know how to build an argument for your position? I am interested in the science and on this issue it's all on my side.

X3: "there are still credible scientists doing relevant research in biology that have information that DOESN'T support evolution.">>

DAR
Rubbish. You post it, I'll roast it. Be specific. Not here [NWAonline] on evolution, it's off topic. Here would work:

viewforum.php?f=4

I'll be responding to your comments more thoroughly over there anyway.

D.
-----------------
"At the 2008 Future in Review Conference, Harvard professor James McCarth, former co-chair of the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change), was asked how many of the world's top 1000 climate experts would disagree with the basic scientific consensus that the increase in green house gas concentrations over the last 50 years to levels not seen in 650,000 years is primarily anthropogenic and is the cause of an increase in global temperatures. He replied, "Five."

...Despite publicly bruited offers of jobs, publicity and lavish rewards from fossil fuel companies and neoconservative media, very few qualified experts in climate have stepped forward to object to the overall consensus on AGW, and those who have done so couch their doubts very specifically, so as to be almost useless to the Climate Denier community."
--Skeptic Magazine, vol. 15, No. 4, page 14 (current issue)

***
More from X3:

X3: "Yeah, I'll hop right on over to that forum to "debate" this.">>

DAR
Excellent. I look forward to you making a case for your position, whenever you figure out what that is and try to support it.

X3: As soon as you hop on over to a religious forum and talk to them about God not existing.">>

DAR
Gladly. Do you have a good one in mind that needs some assistance in this regard?

X3: And I think you've labeled me as a "denier", which is not the case.">>

DAR
Good, then you agree with me. That was fast. Label yourself as you wish but do pick one.

X3: Why would Phil Jones from the CRU want to NOT have some of his information made public or subjected to peer review?>>

DAR
Do you have anything but red herrings based upon misinformation?

a) Irrelevant to the climate change.
b) Make your case, be specific, and I'll show you that you haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about. Like Buddy you are repeating denier garbage you have heard without having bothered to check and see if it's actually true.

But you're not a denier remember?

Warning, nonsense about the hockeystick is a specialty of mine.

D.
----------------
You might begin your education here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... key-stick/

ps. I dealt with your Phil Jones assertion in my original response to Buddy.

***
One more:

DAR
Oops, I confused my Phil Jones and Phil Mann. Climate deniers (not X3 of course) like to make up stories about both of them scandalously hiding data. False on both counts.

D.
-----------------
"The British House of Commons has just published the report by the committee which has been appointed to examine the accusations made against Phil Jones. The report concludes:

The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. [...] The scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact.

For the general public the conclusions on his scientific findings will be even more important:

"Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available-which they mostly are-or the methods not published-which they have been-its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified."

Climate Scientist Bashing:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... t-bashing/

See also The Muir Russell report:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ll-report/
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Buddy Rogers and Misleading Arguments

Post by Dardedar »

More comments:
X3
No, you didn't answer my question. He made the comments that he didn't want certain information to be public or under peer review.
I'm not interested in the media's perception of those comments, or the panel's. I'm interested in YOURS."
DAR
What comments? Show this, make your case. I could do it for you and then knock it down but then how would you learn?

And do remember, the action of a single individual is entirely irrelevant (red herring) to the topic of the scientific support showing climate change (as I remember, you're not a "denier"). So even if you could nail down this point (and you haven't begun), it would accomplish precisely nothing for you. You would have discovered a single, flawed, human being.

To begin you would need to show why anyone should trust your unreferenced claim and personal musings based upon zero investigation over an independent scientific review by the British House of Commons. Good luck with that.

When you get finished with the rabbit trails perhaps you could find a moment to say something substantive about the science? Or are we in agreement on the basic claims?

D.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Buddy Rogers and Misleading Arguments

Post by Savonarola »

X3: Why would Phil Jones from the CRU want to NOT have some of his information made public or subjected to peer review?
Let's presume that the implication found in this question is true. Well, part of it, anyway. Why would a scientist with a profound understanding of the technicalities of the analysis methods for climate (or any other) data be hesitant to publish raw data for non-educated non-scientists to see?

There's a reason that scientific journals like Nature and Science are not on coffee tables everywhere, but it has nothing to do with secrecy. The average person is not educationally equipped to interpret what would today be considered an average paper. I'm a scientist and a teacher; I know!

If you remember the uproar over the hacked CRU emails, you'll remember that the hundreds and hundreds of emails produced a whopping two lines that deniers focused on, both of which were entirely innocent. But that didn't matter to rabid denialists; they removed context and understanding (which many people, most notably themselves, lacked) so that they could cry shenanigans and accuse fraud.

So here we are, months later, with the CRU scientists cleared, and uneducated denialists STILL refer to the scientific community as frauds and hacks. See, I think it's very understandable not to share data with people who (1) don't understand it and (2) have zero interest in understanding it because they (3) are entirely invested in denying rather than learning what is true.
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Buddy Rogers and Misleading Arguments

Post by Dardedar »

I posted your comment Sav.

And I thought this commenter had thoughtful viewpoint. My screen name on NWA is "fayfreethinker."
fayfreethinker's destruction of Mr. Roger's steaming mound of opinion is a work to behold; DAR is like an attacking army of dung beetles, dismantling and destroying Mr. Roger's proud little piece, bit by bit, until there's nothing left.

I'm thinking fayfreethinkers won't object to being compared to dung beetles, one of Nature's most useful organisms.
DAR
Dung beetles is an excellent analogy considering, as you note, the material I had to work with.

D.
------------
JBS Haldane once said, when asked whether studying biology had taught him anything about the Creator: "I'm really not sure, except that He must be inordinately fond of beetles."

If they're good enough for the Lord, they're good enough for me.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
L.Wood
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:21 am

Re: Buddy Rogers and Misleading Arguments

Post by L.Wood »

Where is X3?

.
"Blessed is the Lord for he avoids Evil just like the Godfather, he delegates."
Betty Bowers
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Buddy Rogers and Misleading Arguments

Post by Dardedar »

L.Wood wrote:Where is X3?
.
DAR
Apparently, contrary to what he said (he was being sarcastic) he doesn't have the testicular fortitude to come over here and defend anything. Even though he said he could refute everything in my response. Oh, and he's not a GW denier too.

Oh well, I'll gladly roast him over there and cross post here for humor value:

***
X3: "You still have yet to explain what you think about this information not wanting to be made public and subject to peer review." His full comments can be read here>>
DAR
What information? You have yet to even try and submit the supposed damning evidence. When are you going to do that? You don't even know how to begin do you?

If you don't get on the stick and improve your game we may have to downgrade you to X1.5.

Unreferenced, undated, unverifiable anecdotes you find "in ten seconds" on the Google from people referring to material you have yet to even cite (and no evidence of their familiarity with the source material), is really too silly for words. I'm embarrassed for you.

Of all of the rabbit trails you could have chosen to hop down, you go with this canard? Even after I preemptively cut it off at the knees before you started by pointing out that whatever Mr. Jones has done, it can not possibly have an impact on the actual science of climate change. Waste, of, time.

The fact that you avoid discussing scientific matters and instead chose this entirely futile endeavor of going after one man, Phil Jones, reveals just how bottom of the barrel the material on the denier side is these days. But we already knew that didn't we. Pathetic!

But if you must, knock yourself out. Let me know when you are going to start making your case. A case which at best could accomplish absolutely nothing for your position regarding the science of climate change (if you've figured that out yet). Why? Because it's entirely irrelevant.

D.
-------------
Again, anyone wanting see every single claim in Buddy Rogers article above, ripped to shreds, can read it here (and freely comment as well):

Buddy Rogers and Misleading Arguments

All of my responses are cross-posted.

NWAonline
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Buddy Rogers and Misleading Arguments

Post by Savonarola »

x3 wrote:Apparently you have a poor understanding of the English language, and so does your "scientist/educator" friend. PEER REVIEW has nothing to do with the general public,
Oh, what fun. A random non-scientist lecturing a scientist and science teacher about how science works.

I know what peer review is. Emphasis on the peer. The general public is not composed of climatologists' peers. If you had even half the grasp of the English language I have, you would have noticed that I mentioned addressing "part" of the alleged statement... you know, the statement you still have failed to produce.
x3 wrote:it's the PROOF process that allows other researchers to confirm your results.
Now you're just showing how scientifically illiterate you are. Science doesn't prove anything. Proofs are for maths and alcohol.
x3 wrote:I don't think anyone is worried if the general public has the data; you're right, they wouldn't have a clue.
Of course I'm right. But -- once again -- you're wrong. I've run into countless deniers who scream and complain about information allegedly being kept secret for the sake of being kept secret, and you've agreed with my reason why there's reason for scientists to "worry" about morons drawing moronic pseudo-conclusion from data they don't understand.
x3 wrote:Phil Jones didn't want ANYONE to have portions of his data, including other scientists.
This is funny, coming from the person who just said,
x3 wrote:You don't just get to present results with no background data and expect everyone the accept it.
Apparently, though, x3 gets to post claims with no supporting evidence and expect everyone to believe it.
fatchance
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 5:40 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Buddy Rogers and Misleading Arguments

Post by fatchance »

This is my first time here. Looks like x3 declined to participate, again.

He posted the same "argument" to support his position, "no amount of evidence will alter your viewpoint", then declines to offer any evidence, in another NWAOnline thread:

www.nwaonline.com/news/2010/aug/27/publ ... -20100827/

If x3 can Google an idea and find something he agrees with, then express outrage with anyone who disagrees with him, that's enough to "prove" his point. Anyone who is not subdued by his anger is just an idiot with whom he will waste no more time.

I have this question for the freethinkers: Is this mode of "thought" more common among radical consertatives than it is in the general population? There seems to be a lot of unexpressed fear lurking there, perhaps originating in fear of questioning itself, and one has to suspect religion to be at the core of it. Have you freethinkers thought freely about this?
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Buddy Rogers and Misleading Arguments

Post by Dardedar »

fatchance wrote: Is this mode of "thought" more common among radical consertatives than it is in the general population?
DAR
Probably among radical anywhere. But it does seem we are up to our fannies in radical conservatives who can't think straight.
There seems to be a lot of unexpressed fear lurking there, perhaps originating in fear of questioning itself, and one has to suspect religion to be at the core of it.
DAR
Well said. Fear is a huge motivating force for humans and conservatives seem to be especially susceptible to having that button pushed.
Have you freethinkers thought freely about this?
DAR
All the time. Look around. I have tried to lure thoughtful conservatives here but without much success.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: Buddy Rogers and Misleading Arguments

Post by Doug »

fatchance wrote: Is this mode of "thought" more common among radical consertatives than it is in the general population?
Darrel wrote:Probably among radical anyone. But it does seem we are up to our fannies in radical conservatives who can't think straight.
DOUG
Maybe this explains U.S. conservatism today, and why it is getting more radical, and more dangerous:
...Three quarters of Limbaugh, Hannity and Glenn Beck's audiences identify themselves as tea party supporters.

Forty percent of Republicans say they watch Fox News Channel regularly, compared to 18 percent a decade ago, a strong factor in the network's popularity, Pew said.
See here.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
Post Reply