[Cascade]

hrothgar, on 2012-November-16, 08:08, said:

Stop pretending that your asinine little circle jerk is a conversation.

You post reams of crap.
Every once and a while, people come on to mock you and let you know that you are despised.

The world would be a better place if you were dead.

Richard I think this post is extremely abusive.

Other people are allowed opinions and they do not have to coincide with yours. Goodness knows your view may not even coincide with the truth.

In my fairly limited experience on this topic it is very hard to believe the dangers of climate change advocates often because they resort to ad hominems as you have done or hide or even run from the flaws in their data and even have to wait for legal rulings before releasing that data for inspection.

I for one would welcome a clear exposition of the facts and an open discussion to be able to determine the truth but that is not even close to what i see from the climate scientists who advocate AGW nor in many cases from their supporters. These people on the one hand acknowledge say things like "We don’t know what natural variability is doing." Professor Phil Jones whilst on the other hand trumpeting ad infinitum that the science is settled. To me these people want the cake and to eat it too.

As I say i am happy to read about facts in an open and straight forward way but to my mind the advocates of AGW have a long way to move to approach open and straight forward.

[hrothgar]

Cascade, on 2012-November-16, 13:31, said:

Richard I think this post is extremely abusive.

Other people are allowed opinions and they do not have to coincide with yours. Goodness knows your view may not even coincide with the truth.

In my fairly limited experience on this topic it is very hard to believe the dangers of climate change advocates often because they resort to ad hominems as you have done or hide or even run from the flaws in their data and even have to wait for legal rulings before releasing that data for inspection.

I for one would welcome a clear exposition of the facts and an open discussion to be able to determine the truth but that is not even close to what i see from the climate scientists who advocate AGW nor in many cases from their supporters. These people on the one hand acknowledge say things like "We don’t know what natural variability is doing." Professor Phil Jones whilst on the other hand trumpeting ad infinitum that the science is settled. To me these people want the cake and to eat it too.

As I say i am happy to read about facts in an open and straight forward way but to my mind the advocates of AGW have a long way to move to approach open and straight forward.

I would be happy to see a productive exchange that discusses global warming, however, trolls like Al_U_Card and Daniel make this impossible.

FWIW, "attacking the source" is entirely right and proper when the source demonstrably engages in dishonest behavior.

Al's posts are littered with errors which he never acknowledges.
He simply comes back and posts reams of new crap.

The volume and idiocy of his posts have completely poisoned the communication channel.

Why is that stupid people are always the ones complaining about ad-hominem attacks?

Quote

For what its worth, argumentum ad hominem is perfectly valid if you are drawing attention to character flaws that are directly relevant to the discussion at hand.

In this case, we're simply pointing out that you have a well established history of advocating crank conspiracy theories...

The fact that you spent several years arguing that the US government blew up the world trade center seems salient on a number of fronts.

I can't firmly establish whether this means that:

1. Al-U-Card is a troll, desperately hoping that being mocked on the internet somehow validates his existence
2. Al-U-Card is a crank, who get's drawn in to inane conspiracy theories

Either way, the fact that you advocate one stupid theory would seem to be a valid critique of your capacity for critical thinking.

As to why I bring this up...

It's the same reason that we gives D's and F's on report cards.

It's useful short hand for "This individual really shouldn't be trusted with anything important"

[Cascade]

hrothgar, on 2012-November-16, 13:52, said:

I would be happy to see a productive exchange that discusses global warming, however, trolls like Al_U_Card and Daniel make this impossible.

FWIW, "attacking the source" is entirely right and proper when the source demonstrably engages in dishonest behavior.

Al's posts are littered with errors which he never acknowledges.
He simply comes back and posts reams of new crap.

The volume and idiocy of his posts have completely poisoned the communication channel.

Do you attack the proponents of AGW similarly when they demonstrably engage in dishonest behaviour? When their data is littered with blatant errors and unjustified omissions? "Hang on there is no medieval warm period in that data - you deserve to die". I suspect not.

[dwar0123]

Cascade, on 2012-November-16, 14:02, said:

Do you attack the proponents of AGW similarly when they demonstrably engage in dishonest behaviour? When their data is littered with blatant errors and unjustified omissions? "Hang on there is no medieval warm period in that data - you deserve to die". I suspect not.

Do they post here?

Believe it or not, intellectually dishonest people are annoying to people with whom they agree with. It creates doubt about their own arguments.

[Daniel1960]

dwar0123, on 2012-November-16, 14:10, said:

Do they post here?

Believe it or not, intellectually dishonest people are annoying to people with whom they agree with. It creates doubt about their own arguments.

That is a statement with which I can agree. Unfortunately, too many people will vigorusly attack the dishonest peole with whom they disagree, but prefer to brush the dishonst ones with which they do agree under the rug. I have seen far too many dishonest claims made by people on both sides of the debate. Unfortunately, they convince the less informed, who use similar arguments themselves. The only thing more annoying than those who use dishonest arguments, are those who prefer to attack the person rather than their arguments (this usually occurs when they have no good argument of their own). For whatever reason, this has become all too popular in global warming cirlces (both pro- and anti-). One occurred just moments ago on this site.

[Cascade]

dwar0123, on 2012-November-16, 14:10, said:

Do they post here?

Believe it or not, intellectually dishonest people are annoying to people with whom they agree with. It creates doubt about their own arguments.

That seems an irrelevant question.

I was neither suggesting they posted here nor that they did not just that I suspect the harsh vitriol was reserved for those with whom Richard disagreed not for those who "demonstrably engages in dishonest behavior" which was the reason given by him.

[dwar0123]

Cascade, on 2012-November-16, 15:30, said:

That seems an irrelevant question.

I was neither suggesting they posted here nor that they did not just that I suspect the harsh vitriol was reserved for those with whom Richard disagreed not for those who "demonstrably engages in dishonest behavior" which was the reason given by him.

You suspect that he reserves the harsh vitriol only for the intellectually dishonest people he disagrees with but you don't see how a lack of intellectually dishonest people he does agree with isn't relevant to whether or not he would flame them as well?

Boggle.

[billw55]

I have observed before, that hrothgar seems to have a low tolerance for people that hold opinions different from his own, and that he is willing to express himself offensively.

Al_U_Card may well be ignoring facts that would counter his assertions. But horthgar is the one posting "circle jerk" and "wish you were dead", etc. Actually, I found that post downright childish, but I cannot say I was surprised.

[Cascade]

dwar0123, on 2012-November-16, 15:40, said:

You suspect that he reserves the harsh vitriol only for the intellectually dishonest people he disagrees with but you don't see how a lack of intellectually dishonest people he does agree with isn't relevant to whether or not he would flame them as well?

Exactly I did not ask if he would flame them, which I feel is somewhat euphemistic for what Richard actually said. I asked if he would attack them similarly there was no suggestion in that that I intended a similar mode of attack just that the attack was similar when he actually agreed with the dishonest presenters of information.

[dwar0123]

Cascade, on 2012-November-16, 16:05, said:

Exactly I did not ask if he would flame them, which I feel is somewhat euphemistic for what Richard actually said. I asked if he would attack them similarly there was no suggestion in that that I intended a similar mode of attack just that the attack was similar when he actually agreed with the dishonest presenters of information.

It is very base to assume someone is unfair in their methods when they have had no opportunities to prove they are fair. Hence the relevance. You are demanding he prove a negative in a vacuum of data.

I get from this latest post that you concede he might 'flame' people he agrees with for the methods they use but that you still think that the level of vitriol here is far beyond anything he would use against these people he agrees with. I am not sure how that exactly answers my point, it evades it. How do you know he wouldn't level the same amount of vitriol against someone he agrees with on some level about the methods they use, especially if they spam it constantly for years in the face of constantly ignored counter points.

You don't, so stop assuming he wouldn't.

[Cascade]

dwar0123, on 2012-November-16, 16:19, said:

It is very base to assume someone is unfair in their methods when they have had no opportunities to prove they are fair. Hence the relevance. You are demanding he prove a negative in a vacuum of data.

I get from this latest post that you concede he might 'flame' people he agrees with for the methods they use but that you still think that the level of vitriol here is far beyond anything he would use against these people he agrees with. I am not sure how that exactly answers my point, it evades it. How do you know he wouldn't level the same amount of vitriol against someone he agrees with on some level about the methods they use, especially if they spam it constantly for years in the face of constantly ignored counter points.

You don't, so stop assuming he wouldn't.

I didn't assume. I asked a question. However I suspect the answer would be in the negative. A suspicion and an assumption are entirely different things.

[hrothgar]

Looks like every single post that I make now needs to be approved by a moderator

[hrothgar]

People show expect the frequency of my posting to be increasing dramatically

[hrothgar]

Alterantively it is possible that the frequency of my posting will decline enormously

[hrothgar]

Potentially dropping to zero

[hrothgar]

Its very nice to know that BBO's own little staff of dictators value protecting the trolls more than they do real members of the community

[dwar0123]

Cascade, on 2012-November-16, 17:17, said:

I didn't assume. I asked a question. However I suspect the answer would be in the negative. A suspicion and an assumption are entirely different things.

Fair enough, my mistake in word choice.

It still evades my point that it is very base to ask him to prove a negative without any evidence.

Prove that you didn't rob a bank. You can't, so I am just going to be suspicious that you have.

[hrothgar]

For what its worth I can point to a number of examples in which I criticized people who agree with me for poor reasoning.

[hrothgar]

The following post is a representative example:

Posted 2012-March-02, 16:36
neilkaz, on 2012-March-02, 15:35, said:

Coincidence..I dunno, but I've never seen a winter this warm. .. neilkaz ..

And last year was brutally cold and snowy across much of the US...

Individual data points really aren't good for anything more than anecdotes.
Real analysis is based on long term trend

[hrothgar]

I readily admit that this post didn't exhibit the same level of vitriol.