Re: 2005 was the hottest year on record

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 16:59:47 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
<eatmyshorts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 02:30:19 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
>
>> There is no doubt at all that Rich had been speaking from complete
>> ignorance, let alone any approximation of a comprehensive viewpoint. I
>> replied appropriately and will probably continue to do so, when aware of
>> them and feeling a desire.
>
>Of course. You have Faith. You're convinced you're right,

I cited the sources for scientific evidence that you can read for
yourself, Rich. I'm convinced that the weight of the evidence which
exists now clearly disputes what you said. Any rational person who is
willing to think clearly and examine what evidence there is would see
the same thing I see. That, of course, excludes you because you won't
get off your lazy ass to even bother looking and prefer to simply
decide things on how you "feel."

>and so any counter-argument is prima facie evidence of ignorance,

No, quite the opposite, really. If you would bother to check the
evidence that exists and would demonstrate your knowledge about it and
engage in an informed debate about the conclusions, I'd change my
tone. But there is ample evidence already to arrive at the conclusion
I have, and it's not because of your conclusions. It's because you
have no evidential reasoning for your conclusions.

>which you seem
>to consider a bad thing. For one thing, ignorance is the beginning of
>wisdom.

Well, then. I think we can just agree to disagree. I suspect most
other thinking people will also disagree.

>For another thing, you're apparently judging me without even
>grasping the content of what I'm trying to ask.

Ask?? I saw a claim, Rich. I addressed myself to it.

>All I'm trying to say is, Assuming that it's true, what do you propose
>as a solution?

I wrote a reply to Win, which addresses this as better I'm able right
now.

>And, rather than answer that simple question, you attack me personally.

Rich, if my statements were mere personal attack, I wouldn't have
bothered with providing a detailed rebuttal. I would have been quite
happy to just attack you. But I took the trouble and time to craft a
careful and thoughtful response. Something you obviously haven't
bothered to do much yourself on this subject.

In any case, there is no more accurate word in English for your
knowledge on climate science than 'ignorant.' It's not a crime to be
ignorant on some subject and you can always change the fact of it, if
you care to put in the effort to do so.

Read your claim, then read my response. Compare the detailed
knowledge in one, then the other. The fact is, you were dead wrong.
And your posts after that fact had been clearly shown to you remain
belligerent, unrepentant, and in fact repeated.

I see no reason to cut you any slack.

>That's prima facie evidence of religious fanaticism.

No, Rich. You are the one basing your statements on religious
fanaticism. Anyone with a brain can see it.

Quite some time ago, some 25 years or so, I felt quite the same way
that I now gather than John L. feels about climate science. My
knowledge of it was very sparse and my general feeling was that there
just hadn't been enough research yet and might not be for some time.
But I was very much impressed by some of the research I saw arriving
in the area of forest studies in the late 1980's from Woods Hole and
elsewhere and that is what started me following more of the science
going on, when I had the time available. In the years since, I've
started out with wrong impressions on a variety of issues in climate
science, felt "they" got it wrong here and there, but after digging in
deeper on a few points I've grown a deep appreciation for the care
that has been applied and their doggedness at filling in various
assumptions made in earlier papers with rigorous work to check those
assumptions through more research. Sometimes, this corrects earlier
work. Sometimes, it supports it.

But it is beyond me how you can cry and pretend to be the injured
party in all this, when you made a wrong claim, are ignorant of the
work and research of the subject, and are afterwards completely
unapologetic and worse, continuing in the same vein despite it. Your
unwillingness to work for the value of your own opinions, is your own
right, I suppose. You can be as intellectually lazy as you want to
be. But if you don't care about checking your facts before writing,
and I happen to be motivated and feel I know a little something on it,
don't be surprised by a response.

It is religious to take things on faith and discount facts that
disagree. That has been your behavior. In contrast, as my post shows
with abundant clarity, the facts that guided my position.

Jon
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A menace?
    ... More ignorance about wind turbines from Angus. ... so that birds are not at risk. ... So come on Malcolm, Give us the evidence. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Useless "green" is about tax increases
    ... Here's the evidence on record: ... It is only evidence of your ignorance about HH and when and how they are ... It clearly remains profound. ... habit of making claims about subjects on which you have no knowledge you ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... you are correct in your assertion that it is a miracle. ... for which direct evidence cannot be accumulated -- and in some cases, ... person who is all too willing to ascribe his personal ignorance to some ... miracle and your theory about miracles is your personal faith, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Louisiana Takes A Giant Step
    ... This part reveals even more ignorance. ... By signing the bill, the Governor has sentenced the people ... \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: "Free Lunch" Troll (Was: Re: Reason ...)
    ... On Sep 3, 11:16 pm, Rich Piehl ...  >> have discovered new evidence. ... now to bring this back to roads, that near bridge collapse on US 97 at ... bridge in Union Co that was closed for FOUR years. ...
    (misc.transport.road)