This is how the AGW narrative goes. From 1880-1945, the Sun was warming the planet like crazy. Then in 1945, humans suddenly started dumping lots of junk into the atmosphere, causing rapid global cooling. In the 1970s, Congress passed the Clean Air Act and CO2 simultaneously kicked in with a vengeance, causing warming as great as the earlier period. Then around the turn of the millennium, natural variability kicked in and the planet stopped warming. All hell will break lose in a few years and the polar ice caps will melt down and flood the planet.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAIIGAAk7Ws]
I really don’t know how these people can look at themselves in the mirror in the morning.
Lenin Steel Mill – Magnitogorsk, Soviet Union 1991
Shanghai Air Pollution
Wait let me get this straight, according to the narrative, *ONE* country passing a law has the power to drastically change the climate. Since when is the US the Globe???? If a skeptic where to point to just the US they’d be accused of cherry picking and told that the US is not the globe.
Question: Who said anything about “*ONE*” country passing clean air legislation?
Answer: Steve Goddard. No one else.
You see my point about casually and routinely sticking words in peoples’ mouths?
Probably not.
ChrisD says:
Question: Who said anything about “*ONE*” country passing clean air legislation?
—————
True, you never gave a number – you just made an assertion (the world over) but when pressed to back it up (such as mentioned what legisaltion Russia and China passed in the 60s and 70s) you punted. So here’s your chance to back it up. So far we have the US legisation now tell us what legislation did China, Russia, all the countries of Africa, South America etc (you know the rest of the world at diverse geographic locations) pass? You made the assertion the onus is on you to provide the evidence for it.
Where did Steve say “One Country Passed Clean Air Regulations”? He said “In the 1970s, Congress passed the Clean Air Act” There was no mention of the rest of the world, or other countries. It is a simple statement about what congress did.
Why are you putting words in his mouth?
glacierman says:
Where did Steve say “One Country Passed Clean Air Regulations”? He said “In the 1970s, Congress passed the Clean Air Act” There was no mention of the rest of the world, or other countries.
——————
Indeed noone sated one country. As you pointed out, Steve only mentioned a fact about the US without mentioned elsewhere and I asked for clarification (ie “let me get this staight”). It would seem Chris is guilty of the very same thing he accuses others of.
Where did Steve say “One Country Passed Clean Air Regulations”?
Oh, come on. Read the post again. Think about it this time. Follow his “narrative”: Aerosols were cooling the Earth, then the US passed a law and it stopped.
Where do you think Mr. Endicott got his “*ONE* country passing a law….” and “Since when is the US the Globe????” and all the rest of that?
Indeed noone sated one country.
In point of fact, you did. You capitalized it and put it in asterisks.
Where did you get that? Are you going to claim that it wasn’t based on what Steve wrote?
ChrisD says:
Oh, come on. Read the post again. Think about it this time. Follow his “narrative”:
Hypocrit much? ON the other thread it’s “but the article doesn’t say that” here is “but look at the narritve”. Howabout you go back an look at the narrative in that thread about storms and GW?
Dude. I’m referring to the explicit narrative that Steve provides. The part following “This is how the AGW narrative goes.” That narrative.
John Endicott says:
Indeed noone sated one country.
ChrisD says:
In point of fact, you did.
Chris Remember what I said before about needing to learn some reading comprhension. Well here’s a starting clue for you. Read the whole paragraph, not just a cherry picked part of it. The relevant part that you missed was: “I asked for clarification (ie “let me get this straight”)”. When a sentence begins with “let me get this straight” the person making the sentence isn’t making a statement they are asking a question “do I have this right”. That I misinterpreted something is *NOT* the same thing as the person that I misinterpreted having said what I misinterpreted it as. Which means Steve did not say the words you put into his mouth. The very same “crime” you constantly accuse steve of doing to others.
Oh and I’m still waiting for you to back up your assertion with evidence from Russia, China and other diverse global nations) 🙂
ChrisD says:
Dude. I’m referring to the explicit narrative that Steve provides. The part following “This is how the AGW narrative goes.” That narrative.
—————-
Yes “dude” and your a hypocrit because in the other thead you are ignoring the narrative that the article provides of “AGW causing more intense storms see here’s an example” (that’s a paraphase, you do know what that word means I hope) and instead focus on the fact that it doesn’t use those exaft words to tell it’s narrative. Well Steve didn’t use the exact words you put into his mouth, the very crime you constantly accuse him of doing to others and you can’t even bring yourself to admit that that’s exactly what you did. That makes you a big old hypocrit in my book. And
You didn’t misinterpret the post, you read it and understood it.
I will paraphrase Steve’s narrative again (and again, what I’m talking about here is the explicit narrative in the post that Steve specifically calls a “narrative”, and which you also called a “narrative” in your comment):
“Starting in 1945, aerosols were cooling the planet, but then the US passed a law and it stopped.”
And that is precisely what you wrote. You didn’t misinterpret anything, my friend. You just read what was written.
crime in the previous post was supposed to have “” around it. Once of these days I’ve got to learn to take the time to proofread some more before hitting post.
ChrisD says:
You didn’t misinterpret the post, you read it and understood it.
I will paraphrase Steve’s narrative again
—————-
And see that’s why you are a hypocrit. In the other thread people just read and understood the article and just paraphrased it’s narrative for you but you then got in a tizzy because the article didn’t say EXACTLY what they paraphrased it as, Well Steve didn’t say EXACTLY what *YOU* are paraphrasing him as saying. You can’t have it both ways my friend, no matter how hard you try.
And see that’s why you are a hypocrit. In the other thread people just read and understood the article and just paraphrased it’s narrative for you but you then got in a tizzy because the article didn’t say EXACTLY what they paraphrased it ….
There’s a difference. My summary of Steve’s narrative here is, I believe, accurate. His summary of the Salon article, I believe, was not.
If you think my summary here was inaccurate, explain how.
And this whole “EXACTLY” thing you and your friends have going on is bullshit. I never asked for “EXACTLY”. Someone over there claimed that, and you all treated it as the revealed word of God. I would have been perfectly happy with any indication that the article tried to claim that one storm is “proof of global warming.” But, of course, there was nothing you could post, since there was no such indication. So you fall back on these bogus excuses, “He wanted us to show EXACTLY the words…” But I didn’t.
Anyone with an IQ over 30 would recognize that Salon was blaming the storm on global warming.
Anyone with an IQ over 30 would recognize that Salon was blaming the storm on global warming.
Well, how ’bout that, sports fans.
This is not what you said in the other post. I’d call this a something of an overstatement, but I probably would have let it slide. It is not, however, the statement you made previously.
“This storm was caused by global warming.”
“This storm is proof of global warming.”
You think these are the same?
ChrisD says:
“This storm was caused by global warming.”
“This storm is proof of global warming.”
You think these are the same?
————–
Are paraphrases allowable right now or not? I can’t tell with you, as sometimes you allow for them (and insist the paraphrase is OK) and other times you don’t (and get in a tizzy when the words don’t match exactly). Make up your mind!
Get a grip, John. Stop obsessing about exact wording. I’m not talking about wording. I’m not talking about paraphrasing.
I’m talking about meaning.
Do those two statements mean the same thing?
ChrisD says:
Get a grip, John. Stop obsessing about exact wording.
—–
Ah yes, I see know. Only you are allowed to obsess over exact wording. Gotcha.
ChrisD says:
I’m talking about meaning.
Do those two statements mean the same thing?
——————
I’d have to say that they do because if the storm was caused by Global Warming than logically that would be proof of Global Warming.
I’d have to say that they do
Well, I disagree with you most heartily.
Ah yes, I see know. Only you are allowed to obsess over exact wording. Gotcha.
And, as I’ve already pointed out, I never asked for exact wording. Someone in the previous post just made that up. But, of course, it’s a brand new denier meme, not to be questioned. That’s how it works, I guess.
ChrisD says:
And, as I’ve already pointed out, I never asked for exact wording. Someone in the previous post just made that up. But, of course, it’s a brand new denier meme, not to be questioned. That’s how it works, I guess.
————
You know, you might fool someone who didn’t read that thread,
but saying that to someone who was in that thread and saw your song and dance really doesn’t work.
But hey even if you didn’t demand exact wording in those exact words it’s still a summary/paraphrase/etc of what you did do But I forget is summary/paraphrase allowed or not with you this hour? I can’t keep track.
It’s about the meaning, John, not the wording. That’s what it was always about. That’s the part you just don’t seem to get.
John Endicott says:
You know, you might fool someone who didn’t read that thread, but saying that to someone who was in that thread and saw your song and dance really doesn’t work.
This quote was in reference to my pointing out that, contrary to the new meme here, I did not insist on “exact wording.” You are saying that this is false, and you know this because you were there.
Unfortunately, here’s what was in one of my comments from the other thread:
Now, would you like to reconsider whether or not I was insisting on exact wording?
glacierman says:
October 29, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Why are you putting words in his mouth?
ChrisD and Brandon do it on a regular basis. Just hang around long enough, they’ll do it to you. Then you’ve arrived. ;o)
ChrisD says:
October 29, 2010 at 6:33 pm
“This storm was caused by global warming.”
“This storm is proof of global warming.”
You think these are the same?
You’ve got problems dude.
ChrisD says:
October 29, 2010 at 6:33 pm
“This storm was caused by global warming.”
“This storm is proof of global warming.”
You think these are the same?
Just wondering, did you ask that with a pouty lip?
I was speaking to ChrisD’s comment where he stated that “Steven Goddard said it, no one else.” Clearly Steve did not say that, which is why I asked why he is attempting to put words in Steve’s mouth.
Clarification – Actually he specifically said: “Answer: Steve Goddard. No one else.”
Just trying to avoid another argument over semantics.
glacierman says:
October 29, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Just trying to avoid another argument over semantics.
Too bad they don’t put half as much effort into arguing the science.
Now Chris is interesting in the narrative, or what he thinks something might mean. Come on be consistent.
Same response I gave above. I’m talking about the explicit narrative that’s in the post. The one that Steve calls a “narrative.”
So you are going to ignore the fact that you attributed quotes to Steve when he did not say them.
You should apologize and save yourself further embarassment.
Show me where my summary of his explicit narrative was in any way misleading.
You said:
“Question: Who said anything about “*ONE*” country passing clean air legislation? Answer: Steve Goddard. No one else.”
But he didn ‘t say that and everyone can see that. Everyone watching this knows it is not only misleading, but a complete falsification of the facts. Do you not see where maybe, just maybe you should admit this?
ChrisD said:
“Show me where my summary of his explicit narrative was in any way misleading.”
You in no way indicated you were summarizing your perception of what Steve said, you made up a quote. This is known as a fase-premise – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise
Which is the only thing you are capable of arguing.
No, I didn’t make up a quote. I made up a summary. In fact, follow the comment thread upward from here and find the comment to which yours is an eventual response, you’ll note that what you’re fussing about wasn’t even in quotation marks, which kinda destroys your whole point.
Well at least you have admitted you made something up. That’s a start.
ChrisD:
No, I didn’t make up a quote. I made up a summary
————-
what you did was attribute specific words to a person who did not say them. “Question: Who said”… “Answer: Steve Goddard.”
Whether or not you used the proper punctuation is beside the point, as you well know.
The point, BTW least you pretend to not know, is that you continually accuse Steve of putting words into other peoples mouths but don’t have the decency to even ADMIT (let alone apologize) when you’ve been caught out doing the same thing to Steve.
Well at least you have admitted you made something up.
Now who’s parsing words?
don’t have the decency to even ADMIT (let alone apologize) when you’ve been caught out doing the same thing to Steve.
Because I didn’t. Anyone who can read that post and then say with a straight face that my summary is inaccurate is bat-blind.
I would think that you’d be a bit more circumspect on this, considering that you yourself read it precisely the way I summarized it.
Chris, I guess you could say we have been giving you a taste of your own medicine. You clearly don’t like it. I don’t like being on either end of it, frankly. Just wanted to make a point.
ChrisD says
Because I didn’t.
——
Unfortunately for you, you did, and anyone reading your post would have to be “Bat-blind” not to see it.
Unfortunately for you, you did, and anyone reading your post would have to be “Bat-blind” not to see it.
The fact that you can say this after your own original comment makes it crystal clear that you read Steve’s post exactly as I summarized it is just, well, it’s jaw-dropping. It’s a bravura performance. Clap clap.
Go rent “A Guide for the Married Man.” It’s a 1960s Robert Morse/Walter Matthau comedy (and still hysterical). Watch the imagined scene in which Morse is surprised by his wife while in bed with another woman. He just pretends it never happened, and he keeps at it (“How could you!” “How could I what?”) until she gets confused and thinks she must have imagined it.
So, just pretend it never happened.
The only difference is that in the movie, the mistress left, which made the charade easier. Your comment is still here.
glacierman says:
October 29, 2010 at 5:06 pm
save yourself further embarassment.
You’ll see, more is on the way.
While particulate pollution seems a plausible explanation (to me anyway) for the cooling trend in the middle of the last century, it’s worth noting that there’s almost no historical data available to say for sure.
Aerosols are complicated. Really complicated:
http://www.lanl.gov/1663/files/documents/Item/723/1663_mar09_aerosols.pdf
The Soviet Union and Red China were notorious polluters.
stevengoddard says:
The Soviet Union and Red China were notorious polluters.
—————
I’d say still are.
And still are.. 🙂
In the world of global warming, evidence is not important. Any theory which seems to fit the predetermined conclusions is accepted.
ChrisD said:
“Starting in 1945, aerosols were cooling the planet, but then the US passed a law and it stopped.”
Another misquote. The actual quote was:
“In the 1970s, Congress passed the Clean Air Act and CO2 simultaneously kicked in with a vengeance, causing warming as great as the earlier period. Then around the turn of the millennium, natural variability kicked in and the planet stopped warming.”
You not only misquoted, but misrepresented. Clearly there was no statement that congresss passing the CAA caused cooling to stop. He didn’t even say aerosols – you did, again putting words in someones mouth.
Will you retract this, or continue to intentially misquote Steve?
I suspect ChrisD has retreated to mommy kicking and screaming about how the Deniers are picking on him.
Well, when you refuse to discuss issues because the exact quotes don’t say A = B, even when the point is conceded and you are asked over and over to discuss or give an opinion on somethin, and you continue to repeat the same answer over and over (A does not = B so it is BS), then misquote people but want to argue what someone meant because it fits your position is pretty revealing.
And when you accuse someone of a spreading disinformation, then misquote and mis-represent people, that is pretty revealing also.
Some things build character. This thread reveals it.
I suspect ChrisD has retreated to mommy kicking and screaming about how the Deniers are picking on him.
Well, then, you are wrong.
Again.
It’s not a quote, it’s a paraphrase. A synopsis. A summary. Do you understand these things? I was accused of not understanding them in the previous thread.
If you think what I wrote is not a valid synopsis, then you are blind as a bat.
You are perpetually determined to go off topic and change the subject to yourself. Did you learn that from Obama?
Why did you put quote marks around them? Appears to be an attempt to attribute words to someone who did not say or write them. After all, you did not say something like – it appears to me Steve is ……
I have no reason to engage you on what you percieve as an accurate synopsys after trying to have a discussion on several previous threads where you would not accept anyone else’s perception of what an article meant, or was inferring. I tried several times and was met with the same thing over and over and over, and over……again.
Where were you before this blog began? How do you think your new assignment is going?
Why did you put quote marks around them? Appears to be an attempt to attribute words to someone who did not say or write them.
Oh, for Christ’s sake. Any idiot can see that it’s not a direct quote. Especially since the source material is on the same page.
How do you think your new assignment is going?
I don’t know, you’d have to ask my bosses, Al Gore and George Soros.
Are you getting good performance reviews from Western Fuels and the Koch boys? Maybe you’ll get a raise, too! Fingers crossed!
You refused to understand them so you could avoid discussing the issues and divert the thread. That is why people are cutting you no slack now.
ChisD says, and I quote, not paraphrase, but QUOTE “I don’t know, you’d have to ask my bosses, Al Gore and George Soros.”
Ah, so he now admits to working for Bore and Soros. No way he can deny that now.
ChrisD we didn’t have to expose anything, or do any background reseach. You have admitted it and in a court of law your QUOTE could be used as direct evidence.
Ah, so he now admits to working for Bore and Soros. No way he can deny that now.
Gosh, you guys had me fooled into thinking that you were big fans of sarcasm.
Well, shame on me. I guess you’re not.
ChrisD says:
Gosh, you guys had me fooled into thinking that you were big fans of sarcasm.
————–
That’s because you didn’t take my advice. People who have proven themselves incapble of understanding sarcasm (such as your’ve proven yourself to be) really shouldn’t attempt to do sarcasm. Failure is sure to ensue.
You bet, John. I’m sure you thought that Soros and Gore are really my bosses. The sarcasm was so bad that you didn’t realize that it was sarcasm at all, and you thought it was true.
Right.
Chris,
Do you ever talk about the topic of the article?
Read his comment.
You are saying, again, that it’s OK for people to post crap like that, but it’s not OK for me to respond to it.
What is wrong with you? Read MikeTheDenier’s posts on this page–all of them–and then ask yourself, honestly, why you didn’t address that to Mike and not me.
Because you are the one picking the fight.
Baloney. All I did was post comments that disagree with you and respond to direct attacks. I guess you think that’s “picking a fight.”
I made some points directly related to the post. For having the nerve to do that, I get attacked. Fine. I don’t care about that. I’m used to it. But I will respond to attacks, and for you to chastise me for doing so is just ridiculous. Talk to the attackers.
Do you ever talk about the topic of the article?
I get the impression he’s not here to do that.
Go before a judge and be a smartass and see what happens.
I lived through the 70s and was reading the news about the need to fight air pollution to prevent or stop the cooling. Just the threat of the EPA being formed was enough to reverse the direction of the temperature trend. I watched as the Montreal protocol was passed and the earth was so worried that the Ozone hole immediately stopped increasing before the restrictions were started. The CAA fixed some regional pollution problems but created more trouble than it was worth.
Just because real world evidence shows that natural long term climate variations have been responsible for any climate change we have experienced and the IPCC group is afflicted with CHIA along with those that defend the so called “Scientific” reports it produces.
ChrisD:
You are correct : Any Idiot can understand what you write because it appears to have been written by an”.”.
If is just that intelligent people have trouble comprehending delusional BABBLE!
Steven:
You are right: You have to have an IQ above 30 to comprehend what you write and what you are trying to say.
So which side of the 30 are you coming from?
I will ask my neurologist the next time he visits the “HOME”!
😉
Wow, what a meltdown by ChrisD in this thread. He pretty much nitpicks every single post by Goddard by using “verbatim” argument and then when he is does it and is called out, he throws a tantrum. Lol….what a joke.
I guess that’s supposed to be the nature of this science….you are allowed to criticize the other side no rules, but then when they criticize you, there are specific rules in place.
I can’t believe that there is someone still trying to say the Salon article wasn’t about global warming.
To whom it may concern: just drop it. Learn from it and move on.
Chris never responded to my last post regarding that article where I basically said it was my opinion that they referenced (and linked to articles on) global warming and models predicting storms like the one observed if it was not to infer that there was either cause and effect, or the storm was evidence that the models were right and that this was a form of yellow journalism (using salacious and/or sensenational information to influence opinion). If he felt that the article did not infer anything related to global warming, then he should agree with me.