right, my position. just to make it absolutely clear.

I have an opinion on unidirectionality, but its just an opinion and not my argument. My argument is rubbishing a scientific paper on the basis of the journal it is published in is a weak argument. especially when that paper is picked up in another study thats published in a journal that you cant malign. One that most likely you will find Sir David Attenborough a peer of.
That regardless of my personnel opinion on climate change, that this finding keeps cropping up and that its now being used in other studies etc means there could be something of value in it.
Any other opinion I give is merely a supposition as to why that could be. hence my use of words such as possibly and possibility.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Nice try.

Its not my prime point.

My position all along has been that the research has merit.

I'll help you out with the above quote.

I don't want to repeat myself. I've said that the "merit" thing has been addressed thoroughly previously by scientists. It's not a new myth that Warming causes CO2, unidirectionally. The "new" part is that there is always a new crop of believers giving it credibility.

See this video:

https://youtu.be/zQ3PzYU1N7A?si=o-3bdW6UIz67TMNO

Does CO2 lead or lag global temperature?

Your posts of the abstracts, the false dichotomy, is just one part of the denialism plague:

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=4074

You are quite quickly getting more and more pathetic as I simplify, clarify and further explain my position, so that even a 10 year old should understand.

I clicked on your first link, saw what you wish to portray me as, and wont go any further.

Your first reply to me in this thread was dismissive and designed to halt discussion.

about your third was dripping with sarcasm and defensiveness. and you have not changed or given a response that treats your opponent with one shred of honest intent.

Il stick with my claim you are being obtuse and stupid.

I have liked some of the Attenborough's narrations he's done. But he only has an Honours degree in Natural Science, slightly above an American Bachelors degree. He has a number of Honorary degrees. They are awarded, not earned.
I remember reading of the pickle he got himself into years ago. He has always said human population was the big problem. At one point he declared helping feed famine countries was BS. There was already to many people. I dont remember his exact words, but to that effect. It raised eyebrows for sure!

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
You are quite quickly getting more and more pathetic as I simplify, clarify and further explain my position, so that even a 10 year old should understand.

I clicked on your first link, saw what you wish to portray me as, and wont go any further.

Your first reply to me in this thread was dismissive and designed to halt discussion.

about your third was dripping with sarcasm and defensiveness. and you have not changed or given a response that treats your opponent with one shred of honest intent.

Il stick with my claim you are being obtuse and stupid.

I have thought about you - favorably.

Just so you understand - I have heretofore considered you a reasonable and rational and good intending and good natured and comparatively intelligent man. I forgive you for your personal attacks. Such attacks are expected, perhaps from a lesser person of character.

Therefore, IMO, you and your claims are the perfect springboard for the broader discussion/arguments on the topic per the OP, and on the climate science denialism plague (precise word).

You have misunderstood me. You should have known that I respect you. I don't argue this way or this long with someone I have no respect for. But you didn't know that, which could be a shared fault, mine and yours.

I think your offense is due to your attachment to, ID perhaps, to your views. My arguments aren't about that.

I do not "wish" to portray you as a denier or personally wrong. Your claims are wrong - that's all.

My posts are definitely not designed/intended to halt discussion. Personal attacks on your part and TB40's are thus intended.

I want you to agree with me on the one point - that the abstracts you posted and defended are in fact a false dichotomy, logical fallacy, and thus denier narratives.

You are still way off the mark. I can only explain my intent so many times and yet you are still trying to bring me into a climate change discussion. Im being stubborn on that point because i see where trying to explain using examples in that field got us.

as too my understanding of what a false dichotomy is.

quote:

False dilemma fallacy is also known as false dichotomy, false binary, and “either-or” fallacy. It is the fallacy of presenting only two choices, outcomes, or sides to an argument as the only possibilities, when more are available.30 May 2023

I feel more at risk of being caught in a false dichotomy by answering yes or no too your proposition in such. The second part is easier.

The abstracts can of course be denier narratives, if that is the intent of thier use. Not all use of those abstracts or indeed any part of the papers need be used for that purpose. And I dont think that was the purpose of the science behind them.

quote:

I feel more at risk of being caught in a false dichotomy by answering yes or no too your proposition in such.

Not all use of those abstracts or indeed any part of the papers need be used for that purpose. And I dont think that was the purpose of the science behind them.

Well, your response is somewhat logical, although I disagree. But you are already caught is a false dichotomy. And you are trying to weasel you way out.

Purpose - effect. Hummm. "For that purpose"? The conclusions per the abstracts cannot be misunderstood as to purpose. Unidirectional is not ambiguous. It is a direct and specific negate of prior science.

But do you agree that your response shuts down further consideration, and possibility of agreement?

well no you are trying to create a false dichotomy. What you are suggesting is that despite what the authors of the paper discovered, they should have published a different conclusion.

First - they didn't "discover" anything that had not been previously studied and concluded. From what I've read and seen they used prior studies' data and manipulated it to sustain preconceived notions.

They reached their "conclusions" specifically because of the false dichotomy, if not premeditated. Ask the wrong questions or purposefully narrowing the answers and you get what they concluded.

I didn't create the false dichotomy. They did. I just identified it after the fact, with appeal to authority, fact checks, etc.

This from someone who at the start said they didnt understand science.

I notice you do not stipulate what they "Did wrong", but list a range of possibilities.

You are guessing in the hope not one notices in a bid to stand your ground.
and therefore your last statement gives them only the choice of creating a false dichotomy, or providing a different conclusion.

Also because I missed it earlier. And you keep wanting to put me there. Even if you were correct, im not caught in a FD. you keep coming back to trying to tie me to Climate change. that was not my reason for use of this paper. I thought we had established that.

Now remind me again who is obtuse and difficult?

Quote:
"you keep coming back to trying to tie me to Climate change. that was not my reason for use of this paper. I thought we had established that."

You tied yourself to the topic of climate change/warming cause and effect by posting and defending two links and abstracts and then repeatedly defending/rationalizing them.

I thought we had established that.

What a hoot!
Kabob wants shanks to agree with him, but when asked to agree that climate change is multi faceted, he wouldnt do it.
Hypocrisy much!!

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
This from someone who at the start said they didnt understand science.

I notice you do not stipulate what they "Did wrong", but list a range of possibilities.

You are guessing in the hope not one notices in a bid to stand your ground.
and therefore your last statement gives them only the choice of creating a false dichotomy, or providing a different conclusion.

I may not understand science as well as scientists, and it's especially confusing and difficult when scientists use their own special language to explain, such as abstracts.

But I can easily understand this:

https://youtu.be/zQ3PzYU1N7A?si=1aNOOt5K_pTV-654 Does CO2 lead or lag global temperature?

And I can decipher a lie or lies from truth and reality better than most. What "they" did, in your linked sources, was to present data or information as though complete, but in fact it was partial and they reached conclusions based on the partial data, knowing or ought to know it was partial, sorted specifically to support a wrong conclusion. It has been repeated over and over, different sources, and different victims. It's one classic maneuver of a liar - pick some truth/facts, any truth/facts, that are not the whole known truth/facts, and make inference from the partial truth/facts that is in conflict with the inference derived when the whole set of truth/facts are taken into account.

In fact, we are all victims, directly or indirectly, of the whole multifaceted spectrum of climate science denialism, the plague, the curse on humanity, the world, and Nature, all of which depends on lies of varying sorts: https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=4074

And last, a false dichotomy cannot be resolved with another false dichotomy. Both are logic fallacies. To think so is a logical fallacy and telling.

It's just like you cannot make a lie into truth with another lie. Remember what your mom said and repeated: "Two lies don't make a truth". Or was it "two wrongs don't make a right"? You know that, for sure. Your momma taught that to you. Yet, you post and defend exactly that here on cyberspace.

What our moms didn't teach us specifically, because they didn't know, but it can be inferred from facts and evidence, is that multiple wrongs and lies do make a rightist.

And BTW, my whole argument has been based on the facts that climate change is multifaceted. It makes no sense to claim otherwise, or to be accused otherwise unless one is promoting a lie, or stupid. Yea, I know that's a dichotomy but in this case it's not a logical fallacy. So, I'll make it a trichotomy - the choices are lying, stupid or both. You know who I'm talking about, and it ain't you Shanks.

Me, you keep twisting and approaching from another angle, but your return point is the same.
my use of the abstracts has been to answer your weak initial reason for dismissing the initial paper.
Not climate change. My defence hasn't been based on climate change. my defence has been that the journal that saw fit to publish is beyond reproach.
Yet despite telling you that repeatedly, you keep dragging me back.
You don't know what the fault with the paper published by the royal society is. neither do i. You are simply trying to trap me in a choice I dont have to make.
I havnt lied. I dont care what your argument re climate change is. That your getting frustrated and clutching at straws shows in your last rant. In which you deviate into passive aggressive comments on rightists, god, and peoples mums.
Theres a whole heap of unnecessary writing there.

And yet, Kabob refused to say it was multifaceted when asked. Hard to debate when someone is as dis ingenious as he is.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
when asked to agree that climate change is multi faceted, he wouldnt do it.
Hypocrisy much!!

the irony -- not agreeing that climate change is multi-faceted is LITERALLY

wait for it

denying the actual science

Ill tell you what ME.

A while back you offered up a suggested agreement you like me to concede too in good faith.

I felt it was a tad one sided, so I have a compromise.

If you agree that using the journal a paper is published in as a rebuttal can be a weak assessment of the paper. Ill agree that climate science is indeed multifaceted.

You give me a good laugh, Shanks.

I'm now wondering if English is your first language? And you have a poor spell checker, if you have one at all.

I figure, from all that you have said that you like your cake half-baked. With no icing. You will just call it a pie.

Quote:
"If you agree that using the journal a paper is published in as a rebuttal can be a weak assessment of the paper. Ill agree that climate science is indeed multifaceted. Wink "

So, you want me to agree to something that is subjective, opinion, can't be proven, and actually makes no sense to me, in exchange for you agreeing to something that's a fact.

Hummm.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Me, you keep twisting and approaching from another angle, but your return point is the same.

my use of the abstracts has been to answer your weak initial reason for dismissing the initial paper.

Not climate change. My defence hasn't been based on climate change. my defence has been that the journal that saw fit to publish is beyond reproach. Yet despite telling you that repeatedly, you keep dragging me back.

You don't know what the fault with the paper published by the royal society is. neither do i. You are simply trying to trap me in a choice I dont have to make.

I havnt lied. I dont care what your argument re climate change is. That your getting frustrated and clutching at straws shows in your last rant. In which you deviate into passive aggressive comments on rightists, god, and peoples mums.

Theres a whole heap of unnecessary writing there.

Section by section:

Consistency is not a logical fallacy, don't you agree? It's actually an indicator of critical thinking. It's a good thing that I keep going back to my main point.

So, you used abstracts that are based in false dichotomy as an answer or rebuttal to what you consider dismissing on my part? Hummm Didn't work did it? Take a clue.

So, you posted an article or abstract of contrarian science on climate change and relied not on the science as fundamentally sound, but on the publisher. Yet you claim your argument is not about climate change and the relationship with CO2. Double hummm.

I do know what the fault is with the paper published, and have said so several times and ways and shown my sources. You just won't accept it. You really don't have an excuse because I have shown you.

You are correct - you have the choice to continue to believe in and support and promote lies. It's totally up to you.

As to your last claim, that I'm frustrated, clutching at straws, ranting, passive aggressive, etc., actually I'm having fun arguing with you. It's enjoyable for me, but frankly arguing with you is getting a bit boring. You are too easy and transparent. I wish someone else would join in with something intellectually challenging, something resembling critical thinking. So far, null, you are the best that has any balls in that way. Pitiful, yet that's what it is. BTW, that's the best I can muster as a compliment right now. At least you exposed your vulnerable underbelly. That takes gall, balls, or naivety or all three. (quadchotomy )

So finally it comes down to this. I don't beleive you. Its that simple. Why don't I beleive you? You tell me such with your last arrogant attempt at passive aggression in a bid to assert your own dominance over this forum. I think you have realised that i'm making fun of you and its driven you over an edge.
Id say anyone reading what you just wrote would be shaking thier heads right now.

Actually Ill just quote and capture that in case you feel the need to take it down.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Me, you keep twisting and approaching from another angle, but your return point is the same.

my use of the abstracts has been to answer your weak initial reason for dismissing the initial paper.

Not climate change. My defence hasn't been based on climate change. my defence has been that the journal that saw fit to publish is beyond reproach. Yet despite telling you that repeatedly, you keep dragging me back.

You don't know what the fault with the paper published by the royal society is. neither do i. You are simply trying to trap me in a choice I dont have to make.

I havnt lied. I dont care what your argument re climate change is. That your getting frustrated and clutching at straws shows in your last rant. In which you deviate into passive aggressive comments on rightists, god, and peoples mums.

Theres a whole heap of unnecessary writing there.

Section by section:

Consistency is not a logical fallacy, don't you agree? It's actually an indicator of critical thinking. It's a good thing that I keep going back to my main point.

So, you used abstracts that are based in false dichotomy as an answer or rebuttal to what you consider dismissing on my part? Hummm Didn't work did it? Take a clue.

So, you posted an article or abstract of contrarian science on climate change and relied not on the science as fundamentally sound, but on the publisher. Yet you claim your argument is not about climate change and the relationship with CO2. Double hummm.

I do know what the fault is with the paper published, and have said so several times and ways and shown my sources. You just won't accept it. You really don't have an excuse because I have shown you.

You are correct - you have the choice to continue to believe in and support and promote lies. It's totally up to you.

As to your last claim, that I'm frustrated, clutching at straws, ranting, passive aggressive, etc., actually I'm having fun arguing with you. It's enjoyable for me, but frankly arguing with you is getting a bit boring. You are too easy and transparent. I wish someone else would join in with something intellectually challenging, something resembling critical thinking. So far, null, you are the best that has any balls in that way. Pitiful, yet that's what it is. BTW, that's the best I can muster as a compliment right now. At least you exposed your vulnerable underbelly. That takes gall, balls, or naivety or all three. (quadchotomy )

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
So finally it comes down to this. I don't beleive you. Its that simple.

You didn't believe me before I made the last post. Claiming otherwise is BS. You are just making excuses, flailing about like a wounded bush pig.

If you can successfully make fun of me, I welcome it. Bring it on. That's my game. You are playing in my arena if you try that.

I have indeed declared myself the winner of this argument. How's that for arrogance? You lost when you started calling me names and buying into TB40's BS.

You have demonstrated if not proven that no amount of evidence and fact will change the mind/opinion/belief of a denier.

That, precisely, is my point all along. That is the plague. Climate change/warming is one issue. The human factor of denialism is not only a significant cause but it's also a barrier to any solution other than just letting it take its course.

No. still you are wrong. Still you imply things of others that suit only your purpose. What I dont beleive is that you feel you have won. A person who actually did feel that way would not hit out in such an outrageous manor and risk so far, their credibility.
You have reached point of desperation.

I have a point of assurance, not desperation. Such assurance is tied to facts and evidence and reality. With science in general and especially climate science, to a large degree, I have to rely on appeal to authority. I'm ok with that. The authority I appeal to is as good as it gets.

I've had it, assurance, all along. You just fail to recognize it, and project.

Make no mistake, it's your credibility that I'm after, now. It didn't start that way, but that's the way you took it. After trying a different path, I'm now ok with a duel of your credibility or mine. I don't like it, but it was your choice. I tried to reach a compromise with you where we were both right. You rejected that.

After all, my credibility is always and constantly at stake, herein and elsewhere, to myself and others. Nothing new there. And, no amount of BS opinion or lies has any effect on my credibility. That's only a reflection on the accuser. Only facts and evidence matters.

So, please, carry on. Go ahead, make my day.

Yeah. you see all you have left is to try goad me into some duel where you can feel like you have salvaged your... jeez what do i call it... reputaion, credibility, self control. maybe all 3.
i have no need. no need to argue with you or throw passive aggressive insults. anything from now is more pointless than anything before. And thats not saying much.

Here's where our disagreement started. You posted an abstract about the relationship between CO2 and warming.

And I dismissed it, as you say. Actually, I denounced it and called it denial literature.

Judging from all your subsequent posts in defense, I think maybe I pissed you off.

Instead of letting your emotion rule you, you should have listened.

You say the article was published by the Royal Society. I said before that I couldn't confirm that, and you have not confirmed that. You only doubled down on the claim.

The link you posted leads to MDPI, an open access publishing site. https://www.mdpi.com/

Here's what Oxford Acedemic has to say about it: https://academic.oup.com/rev/a...05/6348133#402618014
Journal citation reports and the definition of a predatory journal: The case of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

I learned something new: "predatory journal" and the definition. I knew they existed but now I know the name for them, properly assigned.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
I wonder if his timing is anything to do with this report recently released?

https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155...sHmgGW1yNbF_WNuKXgas

All evidence resulting from the analyses of the longest available modern time series of atmospheric concentration of [CO2] at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, along with that of globally averaged T, suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. This direction of causality holds for the entire period covered by the observations (more than 60 years).
Seasonality, as reflected in different phases of [CO2] time series at different latitudes, does not play any role in potential causality, as confirmed by replacing the Mauna Loa [CO2] time series with that in South Pole.
The unidirectional

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

unidirectional

1
: involving, functioning, moving, or responsive in a single direction
a unidirectional microphone
2
: not subject to change or reversal of direction

Hummm

Denial is unidirectional.

Well if we are quoting me, I beleive i addressed what was to be my position straight away.
Do you need me to explain this too you ME?

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Yep thats understandable. Im cautious too.

What I find interesting about the submission I linked too, is the idea that the warming is the cause of the carbon, not the other way around. It doesn't mean we are not suffering climate change but it potentially means it is part of a natural event.

That ME reacted how he did gives a view of those who promote the science when it suits them. And provides some insight into what we can expect should this paper go further.

Have a close look at the words I used ME

Im not going to re-litigate the entire thread just because you lost your bottle. Your argument is heading down the exact same track you have taken the whole time. Fucking grow up.

Nope. It's self explanatory.

What apparently isn't self-explanatory, since you haven't recognized it yet, is that you have reached the end of your defense rope.

My post above about MDPI and what Oxford Acedemic has to say about it is a different track.

quote:

Well if we are quoting me, I beleive i addressed what was to be my position straight away.
Do you need me to explain this too you ME?

quote:
Originally posted by shankspony:
Yep thats understandable. Im cautious too.

What I find interesting about the submission I linked too, is the idea that the warming is the cause of the carbon, not the other way around. It doesn't mean we are not suffering climate change but it potentially means it is part of a natural event.

That ME reacted how he did gives a view of those who promote the science when it suits them. And provides some insight into what we can expect should this paper go further.

Shit man, actually Im starting to feel sorry and embarrassed for you. stalking and goading dont sit comfortably with who I thought you were, but thats what this is becoming.

I'm actually embarrassed for you. Floundering like that.

I feel like I've engaged in a special needs ball game not knowing in advance that's what it is.

Ok thats good. I can be embarrassed for you and you can be embarrassed for me.
Im ok with that.

I didn't say I was embarrassed by you. I said I was embarrassed for you.

OOPS. Either I read it wrong or you edited it.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I'm actually embarrassed for you. Floundering like that.

I feel like I've engaged in a special needs ball game not knowing in advance that's what it is.

hah well if now we are just hurling insults. Im not surprised you didnt know, the special needs never do.

This is fun. do you have another one. Maybe something about my mother or something.

No. I have nothing more to say that Oxford Acedemic didn't cover.

You may want to take a look at their section titled "Predatory Journals"

https://academic.oup.com/rev/a...05/6348133#402617928

In summary: "Predatory journals are a global threat to science"

Good night and good luck.

Ok good. If you have nothing more to say. then Ill finish.

This is exactly the argument you started with. You are still trying to drag me back in and re litigate. Go back and read the thread. this has been covered.
You switch between this and insults. you are making a fool of yourself.

quote:

This is exactly the argument you started with. You are still trying to drag me back in and re litigate.

No, actually I too am trying to wrap this up.

You have accused me of stalking. I'm sure from your perspective you feel that way.

But think about it this way; do you realize how difficult it is to corner a climate science denier? Not just any denier, but one who denies he's a denier. An analogy might be like chasing a squirrel in a gymnasium. It's a rare opportunity, and it's a pleasure to find and know you, sir.

Kabob's voice has gotten shrill in this thread.
I think he's gone off the deep end....... what is the deep end of the kiddie pool?

I have learned a lot from this thread. I just followed my instincts and accidentally discovered a good way to trap a denier. That wasn't my original intent. I didn't have a plan.

The opportunity just presented itself starting with a pseudo-science post.

Now, the trap formula is get him to show his sources for the denial narrative and post some data then defend it, let him weasel for a while, snap and bark while digging his hole deeper.

The sources seem to be the key. Arguing science doesn't work. I tried, didn't work. It took some effort to finally find that article from Oxford about the Predatory science Journals and publishing machines. I just lucked out there.

It's difficult partly because most deniers just express their opinions, quips and such. Some don't read well. Some don't even know how to research on the internet. Most are not intelligent enough to carry on a good argument. They just make it personal. IOW, just like you, TB40.

So, that's why I appreciate Shanks. Another thing about Shanks, he didn't lie. He relied on a lie, and promoted it, but he was mistaken. Dug in too deep, yea, still just mistaken. There is a big difference.

His fault now is that he won't admit it. Let him stew on it for a while. I bet he will own it.