Climate skeptic admits he was wrong to doubt global-warming data

Oct 25, 2011 By Geoff Mohan

Remember when scientists who had cast doubt on global temperature studies boldly embarked on an effort to "reconsider" the evidence?

They have. And they conclude that their doubt was misplaced.

UC Berkeley physicist Richard Muller and others were looking at the so-called effect - the notion that because more urban temperature stations are included in data sets than are rural ones, the global average temperature was being skewed upward because these sites tend to retain more heat. Hence, global warming trends are exaggerated.

Using data from such islands as Tokyo, they hypothesized, could introduce "a severe warming bias in global averages using urban stations."

In fact, the data trend was "opposite in sign to that expected if the urban was adding anomalous warming to the record. The small size, and its negative sign, supports the key conclusion of prior groups that urban warming does not unduly bias estimates of recent global temperature change."

Researchers conclude that "(t)he trend analysis also supports the view that the spurious contribution of urban heating to the global average, if present, is not a strong effect; this agrees with the conclusions in the literature that we cited previously."

The literature they cite is the basis for the conclusion that Earth has been warming in an unnatural way during the period of human industrialization.

The paper, made available Thursday, amounts to the second time that Muller et al have had to back away from a key plank of climate skeptics' argument that Earth is simply on a natural temperature path and man-made are not warming the atmosphere.

Several months ago, when called before a congressional panel that likewise has been skeptical of , Muller acknowledged that his team was finding no smoking gun to indict .

At the time, Muller told the House Science Committee that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent .... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."

Explore further: Rising ocean acidity threatens sea life

4 /5 (36 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Errors in the Measurement of Global Warming Corrected

Aug 12, 2005

New Haven, Conn. — The effect of the sun’s heat on weather balloons largely accounts for a data discrepancy that has long contributed to a dispute over the existence of global warming, according to a report by scientists ...

Scientists say global warming is continuing

Jul 29, 2010

(AP) -- Scientists from around the world are providing even more evidence of global warming, one day after President Barack Obama renewed his call for climate legislation.

Recommended for you

Bladderwrack: Tougher than suspected

16 hours ago

The bladderwrack Fucus vesiculosus is actually one of the most important species of brown algae along the North Atlantic coasts. But for years their populations in the Baltic Sea were declining. Looking for the reasons, biolog ...

User comments : 108

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

LVT
1.4 / 5 (32) Oct 25, 2011
gmurphy
3.6 / 5 (18) Oct 25, 2011
AH!, I love it!, hoist in their own petard :)
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (29) Oct 25, 2011
Denialists like the sock puppets who post on Watts are chronic cherry pickers.

Hence their perpetual failure.

From LVT's Tard Boy link....

Disclaimer

I am not a climate scientist and claim no expertise relevant to this subject other than basic arithmetics.

Nerdyguy
3.5 / 5 (31) Oct 25, 2011
Thank you Geoff Mohan for providing neither the name of, nor a link to, the actual paper, but I guess he's talking about the BEST info.

Anyway, here's what Watts said last year:

"I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong," wrote Anthony Watts, a blogger who has criticized the quality of the weather stations in the United Statse that provide temperature data. -WashPost

Of course, he did no such thing. He basically says the study was flawed.

My mind is open about this whole issue. I don't think we have it all figured out either way. What I find a little scary are people like Watts who pick a stance and refuse to budge regardless of the evidence presented. And then resort to ridiculing anyone attempting to find the truth that doesn't happen to agree with him.

wiyosaya
4.2 / 5 (18) Oct 25, 2011
IMHO, what is worse than people like Watts are people who blindly accept what people like Watts say even though Watts admits he is no expert.

IMHO, people like that would do much better if they learned how to think for themselves rather than hearing only what they want to hear.
Temple
2.6 / 5 (15) Oct 25, 2011
This is relevant:
http://adaptation...30968594

"What if [Climate Change] is a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"
andyd
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 25, 2011
What BEST means and what it doesn't:

http://wmbriggs.c.../?p=4564

omatumr
Oct 25, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LVT
1.9 / 5 (28) Oct 25, 2011
Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. Muller in 2003

Some Sceptic!
Feldagast
1.4 / 5 (18) Oct 25, 2011
So are you all saying that the Sun only puts out X amount of heat and the difference is all from MAN produced CO2?
astro_optics
1.3 / 5 (16) Oct 25, 2011
Brilliant, and the conclusion of Richard Muller is... the global warming was significant, or was it insignificant, to justify the actions or intentions of the Alarminst???
Howhot
4.5 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2011
And now it it finally comes home. The Alarmist were right all along. In the last 50 years we really have jacked up CO2 levels in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels (all across the world), to such an extent that the consequences might be extreme.
omatumr
1 / 5 (33) Oct 25, 2011
jsdarkdestruction
3.8 / 5 (23) Oct 26, 2011
you bother to read articlea before linking to them oliver? it seems you dont as the other site says, i quote "Perhaps the most basic issue related to magnetic reconnection is its role in the creation of stars, which begin as clouds of charged particles that collapse under gravity. Accompanying this process is the reconnection of magnetic field lines that are present in the original cloud and must separate out for the star to be born. This activity happens much faster than current theory indicates, so MRX experiments "are constructed to find out the physics of what's actually going on," Princeton's Kulsrud noted. "

notice how they said "Perhaps the most basic issue related to magnetic reconnection is its role in the creation of stars, which begin as clouds of charged particles that collapse under gravity."

david_king
2.7 / 5 (18) Oct 26, 2011
It always seemed to me that we could roughly figure out how much buried carbon we've burned through in the last 200 years. We know the diameter of the planet, the height of the atmosphere, the change in proportion of CO2 over 50 years or more. Yes the oceans absorb some and cloud cover varies but if the numbers line up is it silly to think we might be going too far? Do deniers disagree with the precautionary principle? I'd love to know their rationale before we vote them off the island so-to-speak.
Shadeburst
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2011
What about the theory that the sun will hit a triple low on the three cycles of sunspot activity around 2025; therefore we will need manmade global warming to offset the cooling effect?

As a rational skeptic, when faced with new evidence I'm always prepared to admit I was wrong. However, no new evidence or theories have been presented to replace GHG as the most likely culprit for disastrous climate change.
Mayday
2.5 / 5 (10) Oct 26, 2011
IMO the issue is not whether one is a denier, skeptic or supporter. The issue is just how much human and financial capital are we willing to sacrifice as a society toward what(?) end? I favor two approaches to the coming climate change: 1) PREPARING for the anticipated changes (as opposed to vastly more disruptive attempts to stop them, coupled with making no preparations! ); and 2) stopping the largely ignored polluting of the environment with toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The excessive noise of the AGW debate has allowed us all to become toxic sponges while we cackle about turning back the climate clock. IMO.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (16) Oct 26, 2011
1) PREPARING for the anticipated changes
So how do you propose to prepare for continued warming if it should occur. After all continued MELTING of ice would occur and that would raise see levels.

If Greenland's ice melts that would raise sea levels about 3 feet. OK that could be managed for most port cities. It would be expensive but do able.

If most of Antarctica melts that would be about 100 feet. I really don't think there is anything that could be done to save ANY port under those conditions. That is not billions of dollars, that is many trillions.

So what do you propose for those possible scenarios? Claiming they won't happen is not an option, as you were proposing how global warming should be dealt with, not whether is occurring. Since it is your idea to prepare to mitigate the results of global warming instead of trying to stop it that means you need a plan to deal with rising waters.

Ethelred
MorituriMax
1.4 / 5 (22) Oct 26, 2011
I love how everybody who wants to "prove" the "deniers" wrong only refer to global warming, not human caused global warming.

Give it a couple years and we'll be back to global cooling, then a few years after that back to global warming.

I wonder why, if global warming is so bad, that after billions of years of constant natural heat the earth isn't a molten ball of lava.

Oh wait, I guess humans generated more heat in 200 years than all the natural causes in billions of years.
CapitalismPrevails
1.2 / 5 (26) Oct 26, 2011
And you can be that physorg would be one of the first to exploit the heck out one scientists reversal on climate change.

http://tucsonciti...g-again/
Nerdyguy
3.9 / 5 (30) Oct 26, 2011
And you can be that physorg would be one of the first to exploit the heck out one scientists reversal on climate change.

http://tucsonciti...g-again/


You are misinformed regarding PhysOrg "exploiting". This is a reprint from the LA Times and was carried internationally on a wide array of different news "distribution" sights.

To whit, you included a link to yet a third source, a blog that seems to agree with your line of thinking. It was a well written article and had some good info. also.

The difference between the two? PhysOrg carries a whole boatload of content across the scientific spectrum. Your sight, on the other hand, clearly stakes out its territory - "down with Global Warming science" and has literally not one piece of info. that says anything else. So, who is exploitative?
omatumr
Oct 26, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Quiet
2.1 / 5 (19) Oct 26, 2011
And how is Science going to make it happen. I guess we could euthanize 70 percent of the Worlds population. That would reduce the need for excess manufacturing of products that produce carbon dioxide.
wiyosaya
3.1 / 5 (17) Oct 26, 2011
This is relevant:
http://adaptation...30968594

"What if [Climate Change] is a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"

This is another viewpoint that I just do not understand. Tell me, is there something wrong with creating a better world even if the singular reason for creating that better world is "just because we could?"

Seems to me that the goal of creating a better world is a worthy goal for everyone. IMHO, it is a much better goal than some advocate, i.e., don't listen to anyone else, burn tons of fossil fuel even though it is known to pollute, and damn all future generations of humans (if any can survive the pollution of previous generations) on this planet.

No clue, have you?

In my opinion, we will not have created a better world for nothing. It will be better for future generations. I would rather leave them that than a trashed planet.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (22) Oct 26, 2011
And now it it finally comes home. The Alarmist were right all along. In the last 50 years we really have jacked up CO2 levels in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels (all across the world), to such an extent that the consequences might be extreme.


Personally, I DON'T mind going back to pre-industrial revolution technology, since I am a retired person and have no real need of fossil fuels, except for the occasional trip I will make to buy groceries and supplies. I am pretty well self-sufficient and know how to bake my own bread, raise my own wheat and livestock, and can accommodate the possible reduction of the use of fossil fuels for the purpose of transportation and heating my home. I am not beholden to or relying on the fossil fuel industry, and I use as little electricity as possible in my home, with great results on my electric bill.
I am one of the few whose life doesn't revolve around driving a car to work, transporting by aircraft, bus or train and socializing thro
Pirouette
1.2 / 5 (22) Oct 26, 2011
I am one of the few whose life doesn't revolve around driving a car to work, transporting by aircraft, bus or train and socializing through many venues. I use my phone occasionally and try to limit my electric and minutes usage. I have been successful in all these things due to thriftiness, good business practices and an honest respect for Nature and the natural order of things. Since I don't rely on a salary from some corporation or other source for my daily bread, I therefore am not one of the billions whose existence depends on the whims of a socio-economic system and a job with all the positives and negatives associated with it.
Pirouette
1.3 / 5 (24) Oct 26, 2011
When all is said and done, very few of those who are fearful of climate change are actually willing to give up their lifestyle, wealth, and activities to lessen their carbon footprint on the Earth. They are not also willing to decrease their intake of energy, nor are they willing to give up having children (unless they already are blessed) and convincing their OWN children not to have children.
Pirouette
1.2 / 5 (24) Oct 26, 2011
Carbon footprints are all over the globe. So what do YOU want to DO about it, huh?
Talk is cheap and you need to walk the walk, otherwise you're all a bunch of phony plastic bananas who don't really give a damn about global warming or climate change. BE LIKE ME if you have a genuine concern. Give up all your creature comforts and live as primitive as possible on your acreage. Burn wood in a fireplace to heat one room and grow more trees to replace that wood. Otherwise, complaining is not going to help at all unless you change yourselves.
That's all I have to say on the matter. I 'd like to see these scientists also give up their comfy homes and try my way of life. They won't do it, unless they are not greedy for wealth either. Try to convince everyone else to give up fossil fuels.
Hah. . .good luck from a Conservative.
Pirouette
1.2 / 5 (23) Oct 26, 2011
""I am pretty well self-sufficient and know how to bake my own bread, raise my own wheat and livestock, ""

Sorry, I meant to say CORN, not wheat.Was thinking of the wheat in the wheat flour for baking bread. . . .I grow corn and other crops.
Temple
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 26, 2011
wiyosaya :
Temple:
This is relevant:
http://adaptation...30968594

"What if [Climate Change] is a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"

This is another viewpoint that I just do not understand. Tell me, is there something wrong with creating a better world even if the singular reason for creating that better world is "just because we could?"

..snip..

No clue, have you?


I *really* hope you're not suggesting that I posted that as anything other than an echo of the highly effective satire in the cartoon.
RealScience
3 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2011
Ethelred - Melting Greenland's ice would raise the sea level by ~23 feet, not 3 feet. Melting Antarctica's ice would raise the sea level by ~200 feet.

(For comparison, the last ice age lowered the sea level by ~400 feet.)
jsdarkdestruction
3.2 / 5 (18) Oct 27, 2011
And how is Science going to make it happen. I guess we could euthanize 70 percent of the Worlds population. That would reduce the need for excess manufacturing of products that produce carbon dioxide.

you could castrate all the people in third world countries and just let them die on their own of old age. solves stopping the ballooning population growth without the having to kill people part. it would be for their own good. We hunt animals when the populations exceed what can be supported naturally so they dont all suffer. we have too many people in the world and that results in alot of suffering.
jsdarkdestruction
3.4 / 5 (18) Oct 27, 2011
Oliver Manuel's recent efforts to plaster Physorg.com and other public news sites with his theories and personal URLs are a bit puzzling, as scientists have a variety of publications available to communicate directly to each other in. My best guess is that he is desperately trying to prop up his legacy in light of his arrest in his university office on 7 charges of rape and sodomy based on allegations by 4 of his own children. The charges have been reduced to one count of felony attempted sodomy, not necessarily because of his innocence, but because of the statute of limitations. One can only guess how the recent charges and decades of family strife have affected his ability to reason rationally and to remain objective while defending his unpopular theories.

http://mominer.ms...hildren/

http://www.homefa...uel.html

MarkyMark
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 27, 2011
Scientists and citizens worldwide are now restless and discontent - Finally starting to realize that we were all deceived!

The key to understanding the source of energy that heats planet Earth and sustains life was published on the cover of the 1999 ACS Proceedings on the "Origin of Elements in the Solar System"

http://www.amazon...06465620

Current events will but confirm the validity of the world's oldest scriptures:

"Truth is victorious, Never untruth."

Time to add some links you missed out.
http://www.homefa...uel.html
And
http://mominer.ms...hildren/

Enjoy!
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (25) Oct 27, 2011
@MarkyMark

Ad hominem, in any cause, is still unacceptable.
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 27, 2011
Now if Oliver was to stop using ad hominem on every scientist in astronomy, meteorology and physics I might have more sympathy for that point of view. Still they are overdoing it.

Ethelred
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2011
Quiet:
Killing 70% (or castrating them) sounds much more like a military solution (destructive).
The science-and-engineering answer is to make non-polluting energy cost competitive, and to find less damaging ways to provide food (constructive).
deepsand
3 / 5 (22) Oct 27, 2011
Now if Oliver was to stop using ad hominem on every scientist in astronomy, meteorology and physics I might have more sympathy for that point of view.

By engaging in such attacks, one forfeits the high ground, both intellectually and ethically.
Pirouette
1.2 / 5 (17) Oct 27, 2011
Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. Muller in 2003

Some Sceptic!
so says LVT

Let us examine this first: 7 billion humans live on the Earth presently. With good governance and a decrease of the population via remedial birth control measures and through attrition, the problem should be solved, or at least alleviated within the next 200 years.
But, one must consider something else. Other than natural climate change of which we have no control, there is also the fact that there are other animals (mammals) besides humans who also live on this planet, and who also breathe in Oxygen and exhale CO2. What of them?
And there are far more of THEM, than there are of us.
Pirouette
1.7 / 5 (24) Oct 27, 2011
Certainly, we can cull them and hunt them down for food, while some unscrupulous hunters kill animals for a trophy or the fun of it. And what about all other animals which are generally NOT hunted for food? They all exhale CO2 as well as expel Methane.
Some of the scientists are only acting on the role HUMANS play in their complaints about how mankind pollutes the Earth with CO2 gases. But the truth is that ANY ANIMAL that inhales and exhales is guilty of adding to the pollution.
So what are we to do. Sure, we can stop driving cars or stop using gasoline, coal and oil. But then, how do you keep warm in Winter and cool in Summer? How do you travel from place to place, especially in Winter? By dogsled going Mush?
There are too many unanswered questions that are relative to this problem, and the scientists whose judgments we count on to a great degree, aren't giving enough answers.
PinkElephant
4.1 / 5 (17) Oct 27, 2011
who also breathe in Oxygen and exhale CO2
What does *that* have to do with anything?

Are you another one of those who failed fourth-grade earth science, or slept through the part where you were being taught about the Carbon Cycle?

The carbon you (or any other animal) exhale or fart out isn't the problem: it originally came from the atmosphere into the plants which you then ate either directly or indirectly (by eating the flesh of plant-eating animals.)

The problematic carbon is that which wasn't in the atmosphere to begin with, but which was locked away underground in the form of natural gas, oil, and coal. By digging/pumping/siphoning it out, combusting it, and streaming the combustion products out into the atmosphere, we alter the NET QUANTITY of carbon within the atmosphere:

http://en.wikiped...e-en.svg

THAT is what produces the lasting atmospheric greenhouse imbalance. Not people (or animals) exhaling CO2 or farting out CH4.
jsdarkdestruction
2.7 / 5 (19) Oct 27, 2011
holy f*ck oliver,you expect people to pay $255 for your garbage book?!?!? those people who might buy it might as well flush the money down the toilet and be done with it.
Price: $255.00 & this item ships for FREE with Super Saver Shipping. Details

im also pretty sure trying to promote/advertise your book like this isnt cool with physorg, you are being reported.
omatumr
Oct 28, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (25) Oct 28, 2011
OUT OF CONTEXT = SOPHISTRY.
PinkElephant
3.9 / 5 (22) Oct 28, 2011
The formerly "settled science" of Al Gore and the UN's IPCC has been replaced by definitely "unsettled science"
In other words, since it is impossible to predict in advance the instantaneous temperature at every point in a kettle of cold water situated over a burning flame, it is therefore impossible to predict the rate at which the aggregate water volume will warm up. Indeed, it is impossible even to predict that the water will warm up at all: because there is no complete and exact model of all the turbulence in that kettle.

That's the basic and classic error being made continually and repeatedly by pretty much all the "skeptics". Just because current data and models can't give you precise climate trajectories at yearly resolutions and regional scales, doesn't mean that they're incapable of predicting long-term climate trajectory on the global scale.

Deriving the global energy budget in the long term is much easier than modelling all the short-term, fine-scale turbulence.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (14) Oct 28, 2011
By engaging in such attacks, one forfeits the high ground, both intellectually and ethically
There is no high ground. That is a military metaphor that does not relate to this. And even with the dubious framework of the metaphor it is still wrong.

Is it ethical to let the clueless newbies, many of them underage, think that Oliver is just a swell guy with a different way of looking at the Universe? And the thought processes of someone that has lived a lie all their life ARE relevant to whether Oliver is a reasonable source of information when the evidence and science is so completely against him.

Marky's post was in reply to another of Oliver's exceedingly hypocritical remarks about honesty.

To repeat, I feel that Mark and JS are overdoing it. They are only following Oliver who is WAY over doing the spam and his own frequent attacks both general and personal. It is not their fault that the best Oliver can manage is to call his opponents pinkos and similar idiotic lies.

Ethelred
jsdarkdestruction
3.9 / 5 (19) Oct 28, 2011
what set me off was seeing him link to his book on amazon.com for $255. I almost went into shock when i saw that. His bullshit spamming is so he can try to sell some lame way way overpriced book he wrote thats full of more of his lies and nonsense.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (23) Oct 28, 2011
This reminds me of articles in Saudi Arabian "The Arab News" when a westerner converted to Islam.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (26) Oct 28, 2011
There is no high ground. That is a military metaphor that does not relate to this.

There is always a high ground; and, one that is not confined to the military alone.

Is it ethical to let the clueless newbies, many of them underage, think that Oliver is just a swell guy with a different way of looking at the Universe?

Swell or not is immaterial to the matter under discussion.

They are only following Oliver who is WAY over doing the spam and his own frequent attacks both general and personal. It is not their fault that the best Oliver can manage is to call his opponents pinkos and similar idiotic lies.

But, it is their fault that they cannot control their emotions, with the result that they engage in continued personal attacks, both here and in others threads.

In so doing they become no better than the one they attack.

Pirouette
1.4 / 5 (22) Oct 28, 2011
""But, it is their fault that they cannot control their emotions, with the result that they engage in continued personal attacks, both here and in others threads.

In so doing they become no better than the one they attack.""

It's called "common courtesy" and "good manners". Whatever became of those two?
Howhot
5 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2011
Let us not forget the title of the Article is called
Climate skeptic admits he was wrong to doubt global-warming data

Everything this guy said for years is WRONG! You are on the Wrong side of a serious end of the world event and you want to call us Socialist. What are you? A Looser?
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (15) Oct 29, 2011
This reminds me of articles in Saudi Arabian "The Arab News" when a westerner converted to Islam.
It reminds me of the fatwas against those that quit Islam. Lots of hate towards to him for telling the truth.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 29, 2011
There is always a high ground; and, one that is not confined to the military alone.
No. That is a fantasy. That is something that people tell themselves when they don't have the fortitude to do the grunt work when dealing with those that are down in the mud and slinging at everyone.

Swell or not is immaterial to the matter under discussion.
Yes it is. He is a VERY bad person.

But, it is their fault that they cannot control their emotions
I completely agree with that statement.

In so doing they become no better than the one they attack.
That I can't agree with. I don't see them destroying young children. I do see them spamming the site nearly as badly as Oliver.

Ethelred
Ethelred
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 29, 2011
It's called "common courtesy" and "good manners". Whatever became of those two?
They are aren't that common and Oliver has neither so people are more likely to lose their tempers with him. I don't lose my temper but I will still respond in kind to personal attacks as both history and Prisoner's Dilemma experiments have show it to unwise to back off.

Ethelred
deepsand
2.4 / 5 (17) Oct 29, 2011
""But, it is their fault that they cannot control their emotions, with the result that they engage in continued personal attacks, both here and in others threads.

In so doing they become no better than the one they attack.""

It's called "common courtesy" and "good manners". Whatever became of those two?

They've always been ignored by many when and where practicable.

The 'net simply makes it easy to be uncivil with little to no material consequence.
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (19) Oct 29, 2011
There is always a high ground; and, one that is not confined to the military alone.
No. That is a fantasy. That is something that people tell themselves when they don't have the fortitude to do the grunt work when dealing with those that are down in the mud and slinging at everyone.

Non sequitur & irrelevant.

Principles honored only in the breach are empty ones.

Swell or not is immaterial to the matter under discussion.
Yes it is. He is a VERY bad person.

Argumentum ad hominem.

In so doing they become no better than the one they attack.
That I can't agree with. I don't see them destroying young children.

Of no material relevance to the discussion at hand.

Rise above it.
deepsand
2.2 / 5 (17) Oct 29, 2011
It's called "common courtesy" and "good manners". Whatever became of those two?
They are aren't that common and Oliver has neither so people are more likely to lose their tempers with him. I don't lose my temper but I will still respond in kind to personal attacks as both history and Prisoner's Dilemma experiments have show it to unwise to back off.

Ethelred

Do that based on the facts that are of material relevance to the subject at hand; leave the personal aside.
Ethelred
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2011
Non sequitur & irrelevant.
Nonsense.

Principles honored only in the breach are empty ones.
I am acting on principle. I don't know if JS or MM are.

Argumentum ad hominem.
No. It is just the truth and it was not directed at you so it was not ad hominem. Now I HAVE spent a great deal of effort to argue with Oliver on scientific principles. He responds with ad hominems. Tit for tat is a valid and reasonable principle and if you don't like it I can't help that.

Of no material relevance to the discussion at hand.
For this discussion it is material. You accused others of being the same as him. They are not. Now if you directed that at me as well then that was ad hominem and false. I see no evidence that JS or MM have destroyed lives, I know I have not.

Rise above it.
Rise above what? Oliver? I do it in all my replies to him. This discussion is about the behavior of others UNLESS you have directed ad hominems at me. Then you would be a hypocrite.>>
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 30, 2011
I am not going to stop engaging in tit for tat. That would be stupid. If nothing else Oliver usually stops telling lies about me for as much as a week afterwards.

Do that based on the facts that are of material relevance to the subject at hand; leave the personal aside.
I am doing that. This particular conversation is about behavior. Behavior you found objectionable as did I. The difference is that I found YOUR claims that MM and JS, and for all I can see you may have been directing that at me as well, were equal to Oliver, to be very objectionable.

Every time Oliver attacks the morals and honesty of others he opens himself to criticism in the same manner. It is not the fault of others that Oliver has no evidence to support him and there is evidence against him. He who lives in a glass house is being stupid to throw stones, especially when he is throwing those stones to attack someone else instead of their science.

Ethelred
deepsand
2.4 / 5 (17) Oct 30, 2011
Ad hominem does not cease to be just that because of who it is directed at.

And, as ad hominem is an attack against personal characteristics of the speaker, rather than against the merits of that spoken, it is a fallacious form of argument.

The subject of the article under discussion is not Oliver.
omatumr
1 / 5 (16) Oct 30, 2011
Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proven wrong was himself accused of hiding truth by a colleague [Mail Online, (30 Oct 2011)]:

http://www.dailym...gue.html

Georgia Tech's Professor Judith Curry is to be commended for having the courage to state clearly the unvarnished empirical facts about global warming.

Skilled propaganda artists with almost unlimited tax revenues can only be defeated with facts.

What a sad day for all of the government scientists that have been caught in this quagmire!

With deep regret,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://myprofile....anuelo09
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2011
Poor OmaTard....

What his source (British Tabloid) claims.

Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague Judith Curry.

What Judith Curry actually says....

"I told Rose that I was puzzled my Mullers statements, particularly about end of skepticism and also We see no evidence of global warming slowing down. - Judith Curry

"Judith Curry protests that she was misrepresented by the article in the Daily Mail, and several readers have mentioned that David Rose, the author of the article, is just the man to do such a thing. Its easy to believe that she was indeed the victim of his malfeasance."

http://tamino.wor...ts-foot/

Poor Omatard.. Poor, Insane OmaTard.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2011
Other stories from OmaTard's new favorite fish wrapper - The Daily Mail...

http://www.youtub...T6OSr1TI
omatumr
1 / 5 (13) Oct 31, 2011
Credibility in climatology will not be restored until there is a candid acknowledgement of the natural variability of Earth's heat source - the Sun - and the current state of knowledge/ ignorance about the reasons for that variability and its impact on Earth's changing climate.

http://judithcurr...t-130496
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2011
"Credibility in climatology will not be restored until..." - Omatard

Certainly the Daily Mail has no Credibility. The fish wrapper you have been quoting from..

http://www.youtub...T6OSr1TI
Ethelred
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 31, 2011
Ad hominem does not cease to be just that because of who it is directed at.
Yes they do. An ad hominem is an attempt to the person instead of the argument. In this case the argument is about the persons involved and you attacked some and I made it clear just what sort of person Oliver is to support my position not to attack him.

And, as ad hominem is an attack against personal characteristics of the speaker
YES. And YOU were the speaker and I did not attack you I pointed out that Oliver is a bad person. You aren't Oliver are you? Unless you that was not ad hominem.

rather than against the merits of that spoken, it is a fallacious form of argument.
Absolutely which is why my remark was not ad hominem yet you called it such. JS and MM made ad hominem attacks.>>
Ethelred
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 31, 2011
The subject of the article under discussion is not Oliver.
He is part of it. Like or it or not. Even if he wasn't that would be a non sequitor not an ad hominem. But his behavior is part of the conversation.

I think I need to summarize this as you seem to be agreeing with me and then accusing me at the same time. I see a contradiction there.

We agree on what an ad hominem consists of.

Yet you accused me of an ad hominem when my statement did not fit the definition we both agree on.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2011
Credibility in climatology will not be restored until there is a candid acknowledgement of the natural variability of Earth's heat source - the Sun
Since the variability of the Sun has been known by climatologists, meteorologist, astronomers, astrophysicists and of course me for decades I really don't comprehend this rant of yours. THEY DO ACKNOWLEDGE IT and I pointed that out before.

and the current state of knowledge/ ignorance about the reasons for that variability and its impact on Earth's changing climate.
If you mean they understand that the Sun has a hydrogen-helium core then they are not ignorant. They just don't see any reason to agree with you as your theory is WRONG and self-contradictory.

And as usual the link didn't support what you ranted about. That is part of what makes a rant. You make irrelevant links.

Ethelred
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (15) Oct 31, 2011
Ad hominem does not cease to be just that because of who it is directed at.
Yes they do. An ad hominem is an attempt to the person instead of the argument. In this case the argument is about the persons involved and you attacked some and I made it clear just what sort of person Oliver is to support my position not to attack him.

And, as ad hominem is an attack against personal characteristics of the speaker
YES. And YOU were the speaker and I did not attack you I pointed out that Oliver is a bad person. You aren't Oliver are you? Unless you that was not ad hominem.

The fact remains that the the personal attacks on Oliver are ad hominem, that they remain a fallacious form of argument no matter the provocation, that they prove nothing with regards to his claims in matters of fact.

Such are a waste in all respects.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2011
Fools like OmaTard deserve nothing but public ridicule.

http://www.youtub...Qts-8Cxo
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (15) Oct 31, 2011
The subject of the article under discussion is not Oliver.
He is part of it. Like or it or not. But his behavior is part of the conversation.

That's a tautological argument.

His behavior is not a part of the conversation because it has any material relevance to the facts of the subject at hand, but rather because several chose to engage in the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (15) Oct 31, 2011
If factual veracity is dependent on behavior, we've a problem a whole lot bigger than AGW.
Ethelred
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2011
The fact remains that the the personal attacks on Oliver are ad hominem,
Sorry but that is not the definition of ad hominem and you posted it yourself.

that they remain a fallacious form of argument no matter the provocation
Wrong. They are relevant when information shows the persons credibility is pretty much nonexistent. They are only irrelevant if the facts support Oliver and they do not.

that they prove nothing with regards to his claims in matters of fact.
What facts? In this case what few facts that support Oliver invariably are even better support for the mainstream views. So the question comes up as to why Oliver is behaving this way. Barakan discoverd the legal issues while doing a search for Oliver's writing outside of Physorg. There is rather a lot, most of it highly repetitive but he is less of a blatant spammer elsewhere.>>
Ethelred
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 31, 2011
People, many people, have tried to have rational discussion with him. It is pretty much impossible, at least for the last two years. I welcome the day when Oliver chooses to have discussions based on facts and reason. In the meantime since he is not doing that I have no expectation that others won't return the favor.

Neither I nor any one else is limited to your idea of what is reasonable in a discussion with someone that is completely unreasonable.

Such are a waste in all respects.
Nonsense. As I pointed this out very early in this and you ignored it. There are underage people here. Oliver is not allowed to associate with children. I don't know if that includes online discussions or not but I really see no reason that we should not warn people. So when people ask if the claims are true I will continue to post the relevant links. I searched for those to find out for myself if the accusations were true.>>
Ethelred
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2011
That's a tautological argument
Yes. You are the one that was trying make reality go away. So I pointed out your error.

His behavior is not a part of the conversation because it has any material relevance to the facts of the subject at hand,
It most certainly does. His behavior is the entire reason for situation and your attempts to make this go away are doomed to failure.

, but rather because several chose to engage in the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.
Two things wrong with that. One is that they have already shown Oliver to be wrong on fact. That leaves behavior since Oliver insists on behaving badly.>>
Ethelred
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 31, 2011
The other is that you are under a delusion that this is some kind of debate team discusion completely divorced from the real world. If this was a moderated debate with scoring Oliver lost long ago and his continued behavior would have lead to severe consequences with what organization was running the debate.

In an online discussion where one person refuses to follow YOUR rules it is foolish for others to follow those same nonexistent rules. To use a bit of practical vernacular instead ivory tower irrelevancies.

Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

Oliver has chosen to ignore your approved weapons. Take it up with him.

Ethelred
NotAsleep
not rated yet Oct 31, 2011
If factual veracity is dependent on behavior, we've a problem a whole lot bigger than AGW.


Unfortunately, time has proven that people with poor moral behavior tend to produce poor data. Re: Vaccines cause mental retardation in children.

So maybe you were purposefully implying that we do, in fact, have bigger issues than AGW...
deepsand
2.1 / 5 (18) Nov 02, 2011
The moral standards of anyone here are irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Furthermore, I defy anyone here to truthfully declare that they are without sin of any sort.

The fact is that, were Oliver taking the position the the existence of AGW is incontrovertibly true, those presently attacking him would be silent.

And, were the denialists to engage in such ad hominem attacks, those presently attacking him may very well be crying foul.

Judge not lest you be judged.
Ethelred
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2011
The moral standards of anyone here are irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Except that we have been discussing the morals of posting about morals thus you are wrong.

Furthermore, I defy anyone here to truthfully declare that they are without sin of any sort.
I believe that counts as a non-sequitor as we have not been discussing religion AND I can truthfully say that I have not severely damaged multiple lives.

As for sin there is no such thing. Sin is for religion.

The fact is that, were Oliver taking the position the the existence of AGW is incontrovertibly true, those presently attacking him would be silent.
If that was the case he wouldn't be spamming the site and attacking the honesty of such a vast number of people. I do NOT attack Oliver's nonexistent morals because he is engaging in denial of AGW. I return fire for his attacks on the morals of others and myself.>>
Ethelred
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2011
Judge not lest you be judged.
Then STOP judging. That was hypocritical as YOU are judging. And Oliver's science is getting judged on its distinct lack of merit. Since he insists on attacking the morals of others I will continue to respond in kind, only with actual evidence, instead of unsupported claims.

And I note that you are still ignoring the reality that underage people read here and Oliver is not fit company for them.

Again you fail to realize that this is not a school debate. Its an argument, with politics, morals, evasions, personal attacks, and a whole of lot other stuff going on. We have already shown time and again that Oliver's science is just plain wrong. Anyone that just stands and allows him to sling mud at them is not a noble person. They are idiots.

Perhaps you have never noticed but bad people do not consider it noble to just stand there and get crapped on. They consider it a sign that it is safe to throw more crap.

Ethelred
deepsand
2.1 / 5 (18) Nov 05, 2011
Oliver must be rolling on the floor, laughing his ass off, at the ease with which he pushes the buttons of you and others.

It saves him the effort of having to even attempt to defend on the facts.

Now, care to address that which you conveniently ignored, which is below repeated?

---------------------------------------------------------

The fact is that, were Oliver taking the position the the existence of AGW is incontrovertibly true, those presently attacking him would be silent.

And, were the denialists to engage in such ad hominem attacks, those presently attacking him may very well be crying foul.

----------------------------------------------------

BTW, where is it that "he insists on attacking the morals of others?"
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (16) Nov 05, 2011
Judge not lest you be judged.
Then STOP judging. That was hypocritical as YOU are judging.

Non sequitur.

I make no moral judgements re. those engaging in said ad hominem attacks.
Ethelred
1.9 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2011
Non sequitur.
That phrase does not mean what you seem to think it means.

I make no moral judgements re. those engaging in said ad hominem attacks.
That does not follow from your previous posts.

Oh and by the way Oliver made another personal attack on another thread. So I responded in kind. Only mine was true. This time he didn't actually call me 'Ethel the Red' so there is continuing reason to believe that tit for tat has had some effect on his behavior.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.4 / 5 (12) Nov 05, 2011
Oliver must be rolling on the floor, laughing his ass off, at the ease with which he pushes the buttons of you and others.
No. He has no sense of humor. He sure hasn't found a button to push for me.

It saves him the effort of having to even attempt to defend on the facts.
Nonsense. He doesn't make an effort because he cannot. What he does do is engage in multiple personal attacks and frequent repetition of that which is in question.

Now, care to address that which you conveniently ignored, which is below repeated?
You mean like you did? That there are underage people here. Is that what you referred to? When ARE you going to address that?

The fact is that, were Oliver taking the position the the existence of AGW is incontrovertibly true, those presently attacking him would be silent.
I did address that.
Ethelred
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2011
BTW, where is it that "he insists on attacking the morals of others?"
In many of his posts. Clearly you are arguing for the sake of argument and have not read Oliver's posts. He attacks the morals of ALL scientists that think there is AGW. If you think his rants about them only doing it for money is not a moral attack that means that morals are something you don't comprehend. Which would be like Oliver. As a sociopath he has no actual morals but does understand that others might be effected by his claims that others acting in an immoral way.

Ethelred
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (16) Nov 06, 2011
Non sequitur.
That phrase does not mean what you seem to think it means.

Here it does; your calling me hypocritical lacks a basis in my statement that you responded to.

I make no moral judgements re. those engaging in said ad hominem attacks.
That does not follow from your previous posts.

As my statements have been wholly amoral in nature, it most certainly does so follow.

Oh and by the way Oliver made another personal attack on another thread. So I responded in kind.

How very adult.
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (15) Nov 06, 2011
Oliver must be rolling on the floor, laughing his ass off, at the ease with which he pushes the buttons of you and others.
No. He has no sense of humor. He sure hasn't found a button to push for me.

He's pushing the button that makes you take your eye of the factual ball, and thus causes you to waste your efforts.

It saves him the effort of having to even attempt to defend on the facts.
Nonsense. He doesn't make an effort because he cannot. What he does do is engage in multiple personal attacks and frequent repetition of that which is in question.

He's no need to, as he's succeeded in diverting your attention from the facts.

He's engaging in sophistry, and you're letting him get away with it by being his willing accomplice.
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (15) Nov 06, 2011
Now, care to address that which you conveniently ignored, which is below repeated?
You mean like you did? That there are underage people here. Is that what you referred to? When ARE you going to address that?

Of what material relevance to the issue of AGW the present audience?

The fact is that, were Oliver taking the position the the existence of AGW is incontrovertibly true, those presently attacking him would be silent.
I did address that.

No you did not. What you did do was to evade the matter by presupposing a different set of circumstances other than those set forth by me.
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (15) Nov 06, 2011
BTW, where is it that "he insists on attacking the morals of others?"
In many of his posts. Clearly you are arguing for the sake of argument and have not read Oliver's posts. He attacks the morals of ALL scientists that think there is AGW. If you think his rants about them only doing it for money is not a moral attack that means that morals are something you don't comprehend. Which would be like Oliver. As a sociopath he has no actual morals but does understand that others might be effected by his claims that others acting in an immoral way.

There is a distinction with a difference between ethics and morals. What you accuse Oliver of accusing certain scientists of may matters of policy or of ethics; but, not one of morals.

More importantly, those accusations are levied, not at participants here, but at external parties. That's quite a bit different from the ad hominem attacks under discussion.
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (15) Nov 06, 2011
Now, I have read more than a few of your posts over the course of time, and long ago found you to be one of the few here able to focus on the salient facts, to not allow yourself to be distracted by the irrational maunderings of others. Oliver, though, has here bested you by inducing you to throw down your best weapon, your intellect, and use one of his choosing.
Ethelred
2.2 / 5 (11) Nov 06, 2011
Here it does; your calling me hypocritical lacks a basis in my statement that you responded to.
You were judging. Thus it was hypocritical.

As my statements have been wholly amoral in nature, it most certainly does so follow.
No. They were based on morals. That is what the 'high ground' represents as it has no tactical meaning when the opponent is a mud slinger.

How very adult.
It is. It isn't my fault you learned strange ideas of what constitutes adult behavior. And that was another moral judgement.

He's pushing the button that makes you take your eye of the factual ball, and thus causes you to waste your efforts.
Clearly you haven't seen the posts. You are completely wrong.

http://www.physor...ies.html

I am fully capable of posting a link to a Megan's Law page and dealing with nonsense in his bad science.>>
Ethelred
2.2 / 5 (11) Nov 06, 2011
He's no need to, as he's succeeded in diverting your attention from the facts.
That is utterly delusional thinking on your part. I have NEVER lost track of the point with Oliver. The point includes his bad behavior to those that don't agree with him.

He's engaging in sophistry, and you're letting him get away with it by being his willing accomplice.
Bullshit. I didn't let him get away with anything. GO READ THE POSTS. You are just plain wrong on this.

Of what material relevance to the issue of AGW the present audience?
When did you last have a word to say about AGW in this discussion? That was an attempt to derail me and I am staying on point here.

Now when are you going to deal with the fact there are underage people here?>>
Ethelred
2.2 / 5 (11) Nov 06, 2011
No you did not.
Rubbish.

What you did do was to evade the matter by presupposing a different set of circumstances other than those set forth by me.
They were exactly relevant to this discussion. I an not going down a wholly hypothetical path where you make up everyone else's behaviour. I have no obligation to defend nonexistent behaviour that YOU INVENTED.

There is a distinction with a difference between ethics and morals.
No. Morals and ethics are the same to me.

What you accuse Oliver of accusing certain scientists of may matters of policy or of ethics; but, not one of morals.
Calling people dishonest IS a matter of morals.

More importantly, those accusations are levied, not at participants here, but at external parties.
No. They are levied at ANYONE that disagrees with him. Go read his posts. You arguing from ignorance.>>
Ethelred
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 06, 2011
That's quite a bit different from the ad hominem attacks under discussion.
Now THAT is a distinction without a difference. And he HAS attacked me directly. FREQUENTLY.

to not allow yourself to be distracted by the irrational maunderings of others.
So why are you trying to distract me with bogus hypotheticals, dubious definitions, and evasions of Oliver's behavior?

Oliver, though, has here bested you by inducing you to throw down your best weapon, your intellect, and use one of his choosing.
Again you make that completely non-factual statement. I can and use more than one weapon at a time.

Go read the bloody link.

Ethelred
Pirouette
1 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2011
@Ethelred
I am a recent arrival to Physorg and haven't a clue as to what exactly Oliver is/was accused of to be so ostracized in this Forum. That is, aside from his "Neutron Repulsion" hypothesis. Would you kindly fill us newbies in on the scoop? Thanks.
Ethelred
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2011
That is, aside from his "Neutron Repulsion" hypothesis. Would you kindly fill us newbies in on the scoop? Thanks.
You may not really want this much. But here is a bleep load. I have been reading old stuff all day.

Oliver's primary website. Back when he was allowed near students.
http://www.omatumr.com/

CNN page on Oliver's Iron Sun - there are also two on Physorg somewhere.
http://archives.c...un.iron/

Oliver's own page on Iron Sun
http://www.thesunisiron.com/

Not Oliver's but based on his ideas only with even less to reality.
http://www.thesur...sun.com/

Astronomy site discussing Oliver's ideas
http://curious.as...mber=181

Hilton Ratcliffe ally of Oliver - tens posts and banned.
http://www.physic...t=140676

Which was twice the time for Oliver - five increasingly snides masked with fake politeness and the banned.
http://www.physic...=2327128
>>
Ethelred
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2011
Here is being banned after many warnings from Bad Astronomy. Back before the legal problem. The second page of this thread has a pretty clear and concise explanation by an admin of just what they were bloody tired of. Pretty much the same as here except it was before he was arrested.
http://www.bautfo...ght=iron sun

Major discussion on Iron Sun started by an admin - I have not read this yet. Indeed I just joined the forum today so I could search it. curious.astro.cornell had a link to this, I think, but the link was old and broken so I had to search which required joining.
http://www.bautfo...scussion

And a thread for Question/Pressure2 should he look
http://www.bautfo...ght=iron sun
>>
Ethelred
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2011
The reason for the visceral revulsion as opposed to the bad science.
Missouri State Highway Patrol
MISSOURI SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY
http://www.mshp.d...leName=K

That was for one offence as the rest that he was originally charged with were past the statute of limitations. Oliver had 6 children, some adopted, both sexes. Four pressed charges. One more did not but later admitted to being abused as well. So what about number six?
Committed suicide.

That, as bad as it is, is neither here nor there about his science except for a possible explanation of why he does not give up a failed hypothesis.

I suppose that last link is going to annoy Deepsand. Too bad, the question was asked and I had the information. News reports have been posted on other Forums but I think I was the first to actually read the court records before saying anything but there is no way to make a working link for that.

Ethelred
Pirouette
1.1 / 5 (10) Nov 09, 2011
Thanks Ethelred. . . .quite an eye opener. Very sad that a fairly accomplished researcher preferred a life of pedophilia and pederasty. One has to wonder also about the mothers of these children. Oliver could have threatened the kids' lives if they told. Or the second wife was too busy glorying in her role of wife of a college professor. There are many variables to the anatomy of a crime, according to police detectives. I am not knowledgeable enough in criminal investigation to comment further on that. But I think that Oliver's abuse of his children may have affected his mind and research. . .since he is so hung up on the one thing.
Indeed, crime does not pay.
However, global warming DOES pay dividends to Al Gore. LOL
Ethelred
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2011
Global warming pays dividends to oil companies or the Koch brothers if you want to deal with it in a more realistic manner. All Gore has done is publicize actual evidence. If you don't like the evidence I can't help that.

Ethelred
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (16) Nov 12, 2011
The fact remains that Oliver has here succeeded in getting his opponents to squander their energies on matters of no material relevancy to the issue of AGW.
Ethelred
1.6 / 5 (9) Nov 12, 2011
READ THE THREAD.

Deal with the FACT that there are underage people here.

It is not a waste of my time to point out that Oliver has other problems besides really bad science.

Oliver only wastes time by not replying, of course if he does then he can only show even more conclusively just how poor his reasoning is. If I am wasting my time it is talking to you on this subject as you have become a brick wall.

Your opinions are not facts. Oliver has succeeded only in making an ass of himself.

Ethelred
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (18) Nov 12, 2011
Underage/overage ... irrelevant and immaterial.

Ad hominem attacks are irrational and pointless; continuing them is juvenile.

I'd once pegged you to be one of the more rational here; sadly, I was mistaken. :(

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Nov 13, 2011
This entire thread is a waste of time.

It is not relevant to science that OmaTard was convicted of the crime of attempting to sodomize an 11 year old girl.

It is only relevant to the probable origin and duration of his current mental illness.

"11? Honest officer, she said she was 21" - Oliver

Ethelred
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 13, 2011
Underage/overage ... irrelevant and immaterial
That is what Oliver would say. It is material for that very reason.

Ad hominem attacks are irrational and pointless; continuing them is juvenile
That is your opinion. It NOT irrational to point out that a particular person is beyond unreliable in any way at all. Continuing to point that out is warranted when he continues to act as if he is immune from morals but others must have them

And being a brick wall isn't going change those things

Again this in NOT a debate class. It is not even a court case. It is an internet discusion/arguement with a person that ignores reason, evidence and morals but demands them from others AND when given them he ignores it

He is a troll and has been banned from rather a lot of sites for his behavior. He lasted exactly 5 posts on physicsforum for his attacks on the morals of scientists. Morals he is quit free of

once pegged you to be one of the more rational
Ad hominem hypocrite

Ethelred
Ethelred
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 13, 2011
"11? Honest officer, she said she was 21" - Oliver
That would be difficult as she was his daughter. Of course he has shown a proclivity for ignoring even the clearest of evidence.

Ethelred
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (16) Nov 16, 2011
Again this in NOT a debate class. It is not even a court case. It is an internet discusion/arguement with a person that ignores reason, evidence and morals but demands them from others AND when given them he ignores it

It IS to be about the SCIENCE.

It is NOT to be about PERSONAL MATTERS.
Howhot
5 / 5 (1) Nov 17, 2011
"The paper, made available Thursday, amounts to the second time that Muller et al have had to back away from a key plank of climate skeptics' argument that Earth is simply on a natural temperature path and man-made greenhouse gases are not warming the atmosphere."

That says it all. The climate skeptics (like Omar) have conceded. Man-made global warming is real, the proof is absolute and indisputable. Muller et al. Now are saying that global warming "IS REAL" and is "MAN MADE".

Chew on it loosers.
Ethelred
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2011
It IS to be about the SCIENCE.
Underage people are here. That is a FACT.

Sorry, but not everything is about science. Oliver is no longer allowed on the campus he last worked because of the issue. Personal issues have effected his ability to do science.

It is NOT to be about PERSONAL MATTERS.
Tell it to Oliver. He has made many personal attacks. To everyone in science a specifically directed at people that disagree with him. Me included.

Any time Oliver wants to engage in reasoned discourse I will quite willing to go along with that. HE is the one stopping not me. He is the one that started personal attacks.

And again this NOT a debate class. It is about what people make it not what you think it is.

Anytime Physorg want to start enforcing it's rules they will be THEIR rules and not yours.

Ethelred
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (16) Nov 19, 2011
Underage people are here. That is a FACT.

Irrelevant.

And again this NOT a debate class.

It IS to be about the SCIENCE.

It is NOT to be about PERSONAL MATTERS.

Ethelred
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2011
Your fantasies are you own.

I deal with reality.

You do not set the rules.

You do not choose what is relevant.

This is about bad science.

Personal matters matter.

Meow.

Ethelred

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.