You made this response:
"So you are proven wrong and you try to bait and switch. Sorry, not buying it. You were wrong. Admit it."
To my comment:
"My ignorance was that you made a statement and attributed it to the UN's IPCC. I criticized their imprecision in language based on your claim that it was their words and not yours. Where their conclusions are still absurd, it was your imprecision in language that I was (and still am) criticizing. You also get dinged for trying to give your words credibility by claiming that they came from the UN IPCC when they were really your misinterpretation of what they said."
You have provided absolutely zero evidence that anything that I said is wrong. And it was you who did the bait and switch. The above has its roots in the following exchange:
You made this comment early in our interaction:
"The probabilities favor the hypothesis that climate change is due to human actions."
To which I responded with a series of other probability examples that could be considered accurate where the above statement was clearly inaccurate. You can read it, it's still there: Message 29216262
Your response was:
"Well, it's not my statement. It's the UN group on climate science."
To which I responded:
"A rational man doesn't accept a statement that is absurd. Which the UN's statement is."
(Note that you originally made the above statement and then you attributed it to the UN.)
I also make the statement:
"One thing that we can do is move to higher levels of probability by defining what is certain. One thing that is certain is that the UN opinion that man is responsible for global warming, is wrong. They could add one word to make it true...but they didn't. And if you can't expect precision in their language, how can you expect precision in their science?"
You then ask why it is absurd and then you post what the IPCC actually did say:
What's absurd about it? They calculate correlation and causation and came to the conclusion that they are 95% certain that human activity is responsible for about half of the increase in average temperatures.
You didn't like my statement about the imprecise language in what you presented as the IPCC's statement:
"This is another statement of yours that shows your blatant disregard for truth and your own ignorance. You say the IPCC isn't precise in their language? This is how they define the probabilities based on their scientific studies. They are very precise, indeed. I was taking you seriously for awhile there, but it seems that now you are just a biased political partisan, nothing more."
I explained:
You attributed this to the UN, but it now appears that you were misquoting them. Your statement above (not the UN's) does not leave any room for other factors. It is saying that "climate change is due to human actions" and nothing else. That is, of course, absurd. If you added the word "some" to the sentence before "climate change", it would not be absurd and it would certainly be difficult to dispute.
I further explain
"My ignorance was that you made a statement and attributed it to the UN's IPCC. I criticized their imprecision in language based on your claim that it was their words and not yours. Where their conclusions are still absurd, it was your imprecision in language that I was (and still am) criticizing. You also get dinged for trying to give your words credibility by claiming that they came from the UN IPCC when they were really your misinterpretation of what they said."
Which brings us back to the post that I am responding to now:
"So you are proven wrong and you try to bait and switch. Sorry, not buying it. You were wrong. Admit it."
(oh look, it's like a big ole circle)
You have not only NOT proven me wrong. You haven't even offered any evidence that I am wrong. The small amount of evidence that you did provide, fully supported my statements. |
