Skeptic Project

I stopped watching when George Monbiot started saying that the CRU emails might show some dishonesty among the scientists concerned, he obviously hasn't really looked at them. Then I wiki'd him and found he has no scientific background. I assume the rest of the debate will be pointless.

Not all journalists are the same standard and this guy obviously doesn't know enough about the topic. Mark Roberts was only a NYC tourguide but really knew a lot of stuff to be such a great debunker of truthers, same thing here. I cringe when I see someone that is of the same position as I am too ignorant to properly debate it.

If he fails on such a key point straight away I dont see the point. It's like someone debating a truther but starts off saying WTC collapse could have been a demolition for safety reasons or something but doesn't prove an inside job. But ignoring that If you're not qualified in science or the specific science you're debating you better really know your stuff. The CRU emails even at the time did not show dishonesty unless you didn't look at them properly. Like the one about the "nature trick" skeptics/denialists claim this means deception but the defence was that it was refering to statistics and if you check relevant journals they all use the word trick in the same way. It's a valid term. What's great about potholer54 is that everything he says is backed up by a source he puts in the description. You're not just having to take his word for any of it.

Maybe I just don't like how he said it.

They quote him as saying that, "no one has been as badly let down by the revelations in these emails as those of us who have championed the science.". He says the correspondence which he says is unscientific "in that they have sort to suppress data and has not been released properly to the public and I think thats completely contrary to the spirit of science"

While at the time it is reasonable, as you say, to think there COULD have been some wrongdoing the appropriate response is to analyse what the emails really show and see what the official review panels find. It seems like he simply believed the quote-mined emails and most of the interpretation of them as used by climate change "skeptics" and accepted them at face value rather than questioning the basis in the first place.

Thats why conspiracy theories can spread so easily, people just don't realise the entire basis of the question or claim is usually wrong. For example truthers can say that trillions of dollars are missing and Rumsfeld admitted it on TV and what a coincidence this happened before 911 you might try arguing that this doesn't equal inside job, when the fact is the entire basis of the claim is flawed. The money wasn't missing, they simply couldn't track it due to out of date computer software/hardware and most of it had already been reconciled early 2002. Or other quotes they may use which you might try and argue against them on the basis the quote is accurate, when most of the time they are completely out of context or sometimes made up entirely.

So it bothers me that someone who is pro-AGW could say what he said about the CRU emails as if he is already sure they are unscientific and do contain some dishonesty on the part of the people involved. If you really look at always ones held up as obvious examples of dishonesty that we're talking about there should at least be reasonable doubt that they contain anything bad at all. I remember one quote in particular makes perfect sense once you put it in context, which makes me realise that this guy obviously had already decided to make up his mind about it before he had at least tried to do so.

Sure, he says it doesn't mean GW as a whole is a scam or a con but we already know he thinks that. You can't give conspiracy theorists, Creationists, homeopaths or anyone else promoting bad science a chance to slip by such bad claims in this way or it makes people think maybe they have more of a case. What he should have done is say they need to be put in context and we need to wait for more information.

I don't care if someone doesn't like truthers or doesn't believe in those conspiracy theories, if they go and debate a truther I want them to know enough to counter their claims. If he fails, in my opinion, so badly on the first issue I'd rather not waste my time. Its just frustrating.

Its kind of like trying to debunk the Intelligent Design film "Expelled" but not knowing enough about those involved and accepting some of their claims like that Intelligent Design proponents have been unfairly treated in the peer reviewed literature.

You say i am weird when it comes to climate change, I don't see it. I get just as pissed off with truthers and others promoting bad science, GW is no different. You are right about one thing, I shouldn't let it piss me off as much as it does. You seem to be being be a lot nicer btw, you're letting your trolling skills slip? :P

???

I don't know where all that is coming from all I'm saying I don't care about watching a debate where the guy arguing pro-AGW in my opinion does an embarrassing job on the very first issue. I have better things to do with my time.

Even when someone is on your side regarding climate change, unless they pass your ideological litmus test you condemn them.

Strange, I think it makes me honest. Just because someone agrees with me doesn't mean they aren't still making bad arguments or are good at debating the issues.

Pro-evolution people can be wrong as well and its really hard watching ignorant people debate Creationists who don't have the knowledge to deal with their bullshit. I've also seen plenty of debates with truthers where the one arguing against the conspiracy theories aren't doing a good enough job. Its just embarrassingly frustrating watching those kinds of debates and who knows maybe this one gets better, but I don't care enough after watching the first part to sit through this one and see.

Unless of course there's something specific you would want me to look at...

Why?

Why defend someone just because they agree with your conclusion regardless of how bad their arguments are or knowledge is or how well they perform in debates? Doesn't sound very honest to me.

What box did I put him in? In my opinion he responded so badly to the CRU emails issue and in regards to that issue in the debate that I don't really care about bothering with the rest of it. Its that simple, for some reason you want to make it something more.

When I watch a debate with a truther on youtube sometimes the person debating them is good and sometimes they are bad. If they are making poor arguments against the truthers I really don't care about watching it unless its funny or something, its just frustrating and usually a waste of time.

Now did you have something specific in mind you would like me to take a look at in the video or is this argument now purely about me thinking he did a poor job on the very first issue and so didn't care about watching the rest of it? Is there a good reason to watch the rest of it? Some interesting point comes up or something?

Maybe I just don't fit into your box and thats annoying because I won't defend someone like George Monbiot no matter what just because he agrees with AGW. Ah well. Nevermind indeed.

Ed, you said my name in your 3rd comment. Could you please stop talking about me!!! Otherwise I will have to report you!

I'm not the first person to use that term to describe your arguments, and I'm pretty sure I won't be the last.

I'm comfortable with it.

Ed, I think that you should watch you debate in full, as your original point is just absurd. If you do not, I will just assume that you have some sort of learning disability.

Tautology = Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.

Tautology = Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.

Whats that got to do with what my point is in this thread?

I believe that humans are in some way responsible for enhanced global warming and I recommend that you watch the rest of the debate. (This is not a Troll, I promise!)

LOL I have derailed a thread? This thread is about the video that no one else had replied to and which you, Matt, provided no commentary on either. I simply replied saying that George Monibiot seems to be doing a terrible job arguing for AGW.

If you want to debate the video go ahead, but you can't even tell me what the debate is about. Is there anything in there you think could or should be debated here? If so please do tell me what part and I'll have a look. Otherwise I see no reason to watch the rest when the person arguing for pro-AGW can't even get the first issue right.

You're the one derailing the thread with you constantly trying to claim Im being unreasonable when Im not.

Ed hears one comment from the guy calling out the denialist and goes bonkers at the guy calling out the denialist

Did I say that Matt? I never said that or implied it, in fact I said the exact opposite.

Are you just trolling me?