Looming Climate Disaster: Hold on to you butts.

[z/m(Ret)]

Not attacking your credibility, just asking for proofs...

No you did not. What you are doing, because you don't know squat about global warming research, is use yet another lame anti-debating trick to avoid debate and dictate your own terms of discussion. Which is exactly what you have been doing in the past on other issues...



Hahahaha! Do you really think this lame attempt at attacking my credibility is going to work? That I'm going to take this "bait"? Please... As in the previous "debates" I've had with you, you completely failed at addressing arguments presented. It's up to you to prove that you have any credibility whatsoever when discussing this issue, not to me.

I'm, done wasting my time with you. I'll let others be the judge as to who is credible and who isn't...

You can't even name the report, you have no idea anyway what it's talking about since you have admitted being unaware of the current debates over the economics of global warming. You claim to be an expert and yet fail to present your method nor produce your credentials...

I bet you can't answer the question I just posed on the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

Your body of work has been brought to daylight, you can now run for the exits.

Thank you for your time and good luck...

 

[JustBob]

The beauty of this is that I don't have to prove a damn thing. Just like he did in the anti-civilization thread, Ziggy just kept digging his own hole througout this thread with his usual anti-debating tactics. And now that it's obvious to everyone (expcept him, of course) that he has no way out of this hole, he tries one last desperate attempt to bait me and demand proof of my credibility when it's not my credibility that's in question but his own. The question is, how many people does he really think he's fooling? I've encountered coutless people like him on political forums. They usually don't last more than a few days until they are exposed for what they are, complete frauds, and get kicked out.

So just like I did with the anti-civilization thread, I'll let this thread stand as it is, and let others here decide who has credibility and who hasn't.

Oh and...

... you have admitted being unaware of the current debates over the economics of global warming

I have admitted no such thing. Anti-debating tactic #8, putting words into other people's mouths in order to claim they said something they never did.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Yawn.....

Playing the same broken record...

May I remind JB that I'm not the one claiming to be an expert. I expressed strong concerns over global warming but never took a definite stance on the scientific evidence that is being presented. I also made a case of moving the debate outside the sphere of scientific debate given the following: (1) as informed one partaking this specific discussion might be or claims to be, no one possesses the expertise to validate or discredit by himself the scientific findings pertaining to the issue. Anyone claiming to the contrary has therefore the burden to present his hypotheses and method. (2) from the citizen standpoint, the relevance of the debate is set on action or inaction, the risk associated to action or inaction, and the cost/benefit associated with each course of action. In this view, I would submit chapter 9 of the Stern Review on the economics of stabilization for an in-depth risk analysis of countermeasures proposed to reduce emissions.

May I also remind JB that I'm not the one who suggested that merb membership is too ignorant to bother discussing with. His repeated reference to specialized boards where he should confine his postings on the issue is condescending.

He claims to be a specialist but refuses to answer questions any specialist would be capable of answering, allegedly because self-appointed experts "don't have to prove a damn thing".

Pas fort, pas fort...

p.s. you discredited my risk/cost approach of the issue as a trick to "avoid debate", that exact same approach which was proposed in the Stern review which therefore would also be avoiding the debate, n'est-ce pas? Discussions over risk/cost analysis are legion and very much in the center of the whole debate over global warming. Your dismissal of the discussions as "tricks" proves that you are not aware of these discussions. My point stands.

 

[korbel]

Look, I really don't mean to brag, but having been part of debates on global warming spanning hundreds of pages of discussion and analysis of articles for years now, I'm quite sure I know more about this issue and the science behind it than anyone here. Now does this make my opinion on this issue the absolute truth? No, but it sure as hell makes me better informed...

Hello JB,

A presumption denoting ignorance and arrogance since you can't possibly know this.

I hesitated to make this thread at all because I remembered the path of the Anti-Civilization thread and how it deteriorated into a poor argument instead of a discussion. I offered a documentary as a point of discussion to hopefully generate further factual evidence either way, despite my own fairly definite point of view, then I am accused of using it as "proof of impending doom"...lol. Unfortunately, as I feared, this thread has become a cycle of competing personalities instead of discussing the point of the thread, Global Dimming and it's combined effect with Global Warming and evidence to the contrary. What's left is politicalization, misrepresentation, presumptiveness, and a pointless argument on how to debate. Well, I have deleted several of my posts to do my part to bring this back to the issue.

If you are a "scientist" JB, please use science to make your point. What is the science you can offer to support your view? Editorializing about Gore and Moore and the media or posters proves nothing. So far you make some claims with data, but otherwise go after the posters. If you are a "scientist" then you know the value of providing proven research and analysis. If you wish to continue maybe you will use your alleged training appropriately through the scientific method. If not...I really don't care.

 

[JustBob]

...and a pointless argument on how to debate. Well, I have deleted several of my posts to do my part to bring this back to the issue.

This is where you are wrong Korbel. You cannot have intelligent debate without certain debating rules being followed. This thread was doomed right from the first page, and you and Ziggy are the architects of the direction this thread took and of it's demise. Right off the bat (in posts you have now deleted...) you went into attack mode, first on mtwallet by accusing him of "right wing bias" and of having an agenda (when his post was obviously in jest), and then on me, by accusing me of being CLOSED minded and relying on FAITH. So you immediately jumped to conclusions, and misrepresented what people said instead of addressing the actual arguments presented (and let me remind you that at the start, I simply replied to arguments other posters had puth forth). And when you react like this, do you really expect people to believe that they can have a reasonable intelligent discussion with you? Then Ziggy, well Ziggy was just being Ziggy... Look at his posts from the very first page, constantlly addressing me directly without providing any argument pertaining to the topic whatsoever...

Now if you don't know what debating rules are or if choose not to abide my them, that's your problem, not mine. But no intelligent debating is possible in those conditions.

Now for whoever else is reading this thread, it is fascinating for one reason. It's a perfect example (when basic debating rules are not followed) of what often happens when a couple of people dare post arguments and/or opinions which go against the majority opinion. They are immediately attacked, and those who originally claimed they wanted a debate use every possible trick in the anti-debating 101 book (attack the messenger, bait and switch, the "blitzkrieg", the strawman, etc...) in order to stiffle debate and make sure it doesn't occur.

Now you can continue if you want but I'm done discussing politics and world affairs on this forum.

 

[korbel]

This is where you are wrong Korbel. You cannot have intelligent debate without certain debating rules being followed. This thread was doomed right from the first page, and you and Ziggy are the architects of the direction this thread took and of it's demise. Right off the bat (in posts you have now deleted...) you went into attack mode, first on mtwallet by accusing him of "right wing bias" and of having an agenda (when his post was obviously in jest), and then on me, by accusing me of being CLOSED minded and relying on FAITH. So you immediately jumped to conclusions, and misrepresented what people said instead of addressing the actual arguments presented (and let me remind you that at the start, I simply replied to arguments other posters had puth forth). Then Ziggy, well Ziggy was just being Ziggy... Look at his posts from the very first page, constantlly addressing me directly without providing any argument pertaining to the topic whatsoever...

Now if you don't know what debating rules are or if choose not to abide my them, that's your problem, not mine. But no intelligent debating is possible in those conditions.

Now for whoever else is reading this thread, it is fascinating for one reason. It's a perfect example (when basic debating rules are not followed) of what often happens when a couple of people dare post arguments and/or opinions which go against the majority opinion. They are immediately attacked, and those who originally claimed they wanted a debate use every possible trick in the anti-debating 101 book (attack the messenger, bait and switch, the "blitzkrieg", the strawman, etc...) in order to stiffle debate and make sure it doesn't occur.

Now you can continue if you want but I'm done discussing politics and world affairs on this forum.

Hello JB,

So this is your version of the scientific method huh...nothing but EXCUSES! Well well...true science takes endless discipline and patience absolutely absent here in your ranting post. I challenged you to get back on subject and make any point you wish to...ON TOPIC...and here we have total failure. What a fraud!!!

Adieu,

Korbel

 

[JustBob]

Well, this is worth repeating.

Now for whoever else is reading this thread, it is fascinating for one reason. It's a perfect example (when basic debating rules are not followed) of what often happens when a couple of people dare post arguments and/or opinions which go against the majority opinion. They are immediately attacked, and those who originally claimed they wanted a debate use every possible trick in the anti-debating 101 book (attack the messenger, bait and switch, the "blitzkrieg", the strawman, etc...) in order to stiffle debate and make sure it doesn't occur.

No point for me to discuss with a fraud.

What a fraud!!!

One more time, I would like to point readers to the first few posts of Korbel and Ziggy in this thread, where they chose to install a framework for discussion by attacking (or addressing) the posters directly instead of the arguments presented. After such responses, any rational human beings would conclude that having an intelligent debate with these people is impossible. And afterwards, as if none of that had ever happened, they issue a "challenge" (i.e. "bait") which again, no rational human being would accept coming from them. You see, before one starts issuing "challenges" that are going to be accepted, they first have to demonstrate that they are capable of producing arguments and counter-arguments to opinions presented and not just attack posters and stiffle debate with lame anti-debating tactics. In this case, both posters have utterly failed in that regard. Now I challenge THEM to try this little stunt on a political forum (where debating rules apply) and see how long it takes before they get ridiculed and kicked off...

Your honor, the defense rests.

 

[korbel]

Unbelievable!

Well, this is worth repeating.

Now for whoever else is reading this thread, it is fascinating for one reason. It's a perfect example (when basic debating rules are not followed) of what often happens when a couple of people dare post arguments and/or opinions which go against the majority opinion. They are immediately attacked, and those who originally claimed they wanted a debate use every possible trick in the anti-debating 101 book (attack the messenger, bait and switch, the "blitzkrieg", the strawman, etc...) in order to stiffle debate and make sure it doesn't occur.

One more time, I would like to point readers to the first few posts of Korbel and Ziggy in this thread, where they chose to install a framework for discussion by attacking (or addressing) the posters directly instead of the arguments presented. After such responses, any rational human beings would conclude that having an intelligent debate with these people is impossible. And afterwards, as if none of that had ever happened, they issue a "challenge" (i.e. "bait") which again, no rational human being would accept coming from them. You see, before one starts issuing "challenges" that are going to be accepted, they first have to demonstrate that they are capable of producing arguments and counter-arguments to opinions presented and not just attack posters and stiffle debate with lame anti-debating tactics. In this case, both posters have utterly failed in that regard. Now I challenge THEM to try this little stunt on a political forum (where debating rules apply) and see how long it takes before they get ridiculed and kicked off...

Your honor, the defense rests.

Hello Ziggyman,

Geeeeeeeeez...so many excuses and conspiracy delusions from him. Makes it clear why he doubts Global Warming so firmly. And now begging others for vindication. Pretty poor from a professed professional "debater". What...a...TRIP! Of course another retort is about to follow.

Cuckoo,

Korbel

 

[JustBob]

Of course another retort is about to follow.

Korbel

Yup, seeing two like-minded individuals in denial of their own behavior go down in flames is beautiful to watch. Next thing you know, your partner in crime will start deleting some of his posts too.

 

[joelcairo]

Hi Ziggy and Korbel. Don't bother wasting your time with Bobby. He's just using his standard operating tactics because he enjoys the battle even though his gun never has any bullets.

 

[JustBob]

Hi Ziggy and Korbel. Don't bother wasting your time with Bobby. He's just using his standard operating tactics because he enjoys the battle even though his gun never has any bullets.

Hahaha! Well look who's here, the fly on the wall. And he can't even come up with his own witty retort and has to use a lame variation of what I said to him in another thread. Now where did I put that fly swatter...

 

[joelcairo]

Hahaha! Well look who's here, the fly on the wall. And he can't even come up with his own witty retort and has to use a lame variation of what I said to him in another thread. Now where did I put that fly swatter.

Hi Bobby. Just before putting you on my ignore list (mea culpa for not doing it years ago!) I read this last post of yours and saw the usual nonsense and lies. Well, I caught you on this one as so many have so often before, but don't worry. It will be the last time I expose you because it will be the last time I waste even a few precious seconds reading your tiresome nonsense. Have a nice life. Cheers.

 

[JustBob]

Hi Bobby. Just before putting you on my ignore list (mea culpa for not doing it years ago!) I read this last post of yours and saw the usual nonsense and lies. Well, I caught you on this one as so many have so often before, but don't worry. It will be the last time I expose you because it will be the last time I waste even a few precious seconds reading your tiresome nonsense. Have a nice life. Cheers.

Damn, he's not ignoring me like he said he would.

Nonsense and lies huh... Exposing me huh...

Me (in the other thread)

"Don't engage into a war of words when you don't have any amunition"

You (here)

"he enjoys the battle even though his gun never has any bullets"

[Buzzer sound] Sorry, you lose, better luck next time sir.

 

[JustBob]

Alright, since I've officially grown tired of this crap, you guys have fun agreeing with yourselves...

 

[korbel]

Hi Bobby. Just before putting you on my ignore list (mea culpa for not doing it years ago!) I read this last post of yours and saw the usual nonsense and lies. Well, I caught you on this one as so many have so often before, but don't worry. It will be the last time I expose you because it will be the last time I waste even a few precious seconds reading your tiresome nonsense. Have a nice life. Cheers.

Hello Joelcairo,

Shhhhhhhhhh...be very careful you don't get on the conspiracy blacklist. The "Green Baiter" is around taking names and calling on his non-existent followers to cast the demons out...

Laughable,

Korbel

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Questionable authority

Hello Ziggyman,

Geeeeeeeeez...so many excuses and conspiracy delusions from him. Makes it clear why he doubts Global Warming so firmly. And now begging others for vindication. Pretty poor from a professed professional "debater". What...a...TRIP! Of course another retort is about to follow.

Cuckoo,

Korbel

Korbel and JoelCairo,

Any debater with the slightest bit of assurance, let alone endowed with any sort of competence, wouldn't get all bent out of shape over someone asking how he validates data. One who claims to be an expert should have no problem answering such a basic question.

"I'm more knowledgeable", "You wouldn't last in specialized forums", repeating the catch phrase "anti-debating 101" ad nauseam, "hahahaha", dropping names, links, and making misc. appeals to authority ad verecundiam don't cut it. The appeal to authority is fallacious and inappropriate if the proclaimed authority is unable or unwilling ("I don't have to prove a damn thing") to produce his credentials. His offhand rebuttal of my introduction of policy making based on threat assessment and risk analysis, central to the debate since the release of the Stern Review, preys to his fallacy.

JB's validation of claims made by dissident physicists is therefore unreliable. The claims are not necessarily false or unreliable, only JB's validation of the same claims, based solely on his misuse of authority (read arrogance and condescension), is fallacious.

 

[eastender]

And the Net Result Is ....................

Things are not moving forward.

At least posting on review boards has not been proven to harm the ozone layer.

 

[Ben Dover]

Now for whoever else is reading this thread, it is fascinating for one reason.

I'd say it's fascinating for several reasons. I just read it now... Very interesting

Here's one thing that I didn't see mentioned anywhere which I think people should be aware of... The melting of the icecaps themselves is not going to make the oceanic water level rise at all... It's like meling an ice cube in a cup of water. The volume will not increase when it melts... What people should really be afraid of (if they are within 100FT of sea level) is the melting of the Greenland Ice sheets/glaciers etc... All that ice is on land and it's going to melt into the ocean... Imagine your glass of water with a couple ice cubes in it... Now drop another handful of melting ice cubes into it and watch it spill over...

It's a perfect example (when basic debating rules are not followed) of what often happens when a couple of people dare post arguments and/or opinions which go against the majority opinion. They are immediately attacked, and those who originally claimed they wanted a debate use every possible trick in the anti-debating 101 book (attack the messenger, bait and switch, the "blitzkrieg", the strawman, etc...) in order to stiffle debate and make sure it doesn't occur. Now you can continue if you want but I'm done discussing politics and world affairs on this forum.

That's the best laugh I've had all week. I laughed almost as hard reading the back and forth posts between Juste Bob and Korbie... It's equivalent to watching an on-stage drama by the same team that brought us dumb and dumber -- or maybe even dumb and dumberer..

My two cents, since you appear to desire feedback from others reading this thread, is that ZM's debating style is more than appropriate (not to mention much more engaging) than your own.

Laughing my ass off,

BD

 

[korbel]

Honestly

I'd say it's fascinating for several reasons. I just read it now... Very interesting

Here's one thing that I didn't see mentioned anywhere which I think people should be aware of... The melting of the icecaps themselves is not going to make the oceanic water level rise at all... It's like meling an ice cube in a cup of water. The volume will not increase when it melts... What people should really be afraid of (if they are within 100FT of sea level) is the melting of the Greenland Ice sheets/glaciers etc... All that ice is on land and it's going to melt into the ocean... Imagine your glass of water with a couple ice cubes in it... Now drop another handful of melting ice cubes into it and watch it spill over...



That's the best laugh I've had all week. I laughed almost as hard reading the back and forth posts between Juste Bob and Korbie... It's equivalent to watching an on-stage drama by the same team that brought us dumb and dumber -- or maybe even dumb and dumberer..

My two cents, since you appear to desire feedback from others reading this thread, is that ZM's debating style is more than appropriate (not to mention much more engaging) than your own.

Laughing my ass off,

BD

Hello BD,

Honestly...I have been pretty poor on this thread concerning JB. I would delete all of it but I want to have a firm reminder of what happens when one takes a bad appproach. However I am shocked with the ways of JB. I had always considered him a decent thinker and writer. All these rants on rules and conspiracies instead of good content on the issue. Partly my fault for sure. But his persistent ranting is shocking!!!

Ugly,

Korbel

 

[Ben Dover]

Things are not moving forward.

At least posting on review boards has not been proven to harm the ozone layer.

You need to turn your computer off between each post to reduce your carbon footprint. I am running my PC on canola oil...