Waist deep in AGW

[pfrit]

Oh god you guys know I didn't mean sea ice but rather land ice at the poles. God you people are nitpicky and don't actually care about reasoned discussion.

Only the south pole has land ice. Greenland is near the north pole and has land ice, but is not at the pole. Strangely enough, I have read that Greenland is actually displacing more water previoulsy thought because it is rising out of the ocean (unsinking as it were) from the loss of the weight of the melting ice. As it turns out, much of the water on Greenland is actually under sea level as the land has been depressed by the weight of the ice until Greenland is cup shaped and largely below sea level. The actual rise in sea level from a complete melting of Greenland ice (Not that that is likely to happen) would not happen for quite some time as the land rebounds.

[Josh Cryer]

Josh, no we do not know that. All we know is what you say. That is the only way we have of knowing what you mean. To have a reasoned discussion, one absolutely must be nitpicky, because a reasoned discussion requires accurate communication, and accurate communication requires being nitpicky.

No, if you used logic you would have known precisely what I meant. This is how discussion tends to work. If you think someone made a mistake or even a typo, rather than hinging on it as you people are doing, you would, as a good, honest, individual, attempt to make sure that the person you were talking to didn't really mean to say what they said.

You made a huge mistake (very fatal to your argument). You made it even worse with your response.

My response corrected my mistake. I was taught as a young man to own up to your mistakes. I did that. And I get chastised for it. What a load of horse shit.

You have negated everything you have ever said on this site because you have just now stated that what you have written may or may not be what you mean, and that we must guess which it is. A simple "I'm sorry, I meant land ice" would have actually made some repairs to your position.

You can no longer be trusted with anything you say, but not because you made the mistake.

Only in a culture of degenerates would this be true. People make mistakes. When they own up to them (even when said mistake was an obvious, logical conclusion), you should respect them for that. But no, you continue this banter because it makes you feel big and somehow legitimizes what you're saying.

When D'Alleo decided to use homogenized GISS data and claim that it was "raw" and was called out on it, he spun and didn't own up to his mistake. Yes I faulted you partially because it was the logical conclusion of what I was saying, but I did admit that I made a mistake.

That's the frick up thing about denialism. When denialists make mistakes they spin and try to cover them up. When scientists do, they correct their mistake.

And oh boy do denialists make a lot of mistakes (if not outright disinformation), as I will show with the Climate Skeptic after I see the NASA outline in a little under a week; been busy discussing how it's a good direction with so called conservatives who are for massive government spending and jobs programs, but I digress.

[taniwha]

Josh, no we do not know that. All we know is what you say. That is the only way we have of knowing what you mean. To have a reasoned discussion, one absolutely must be nitpicky, because a reasoned discussion requires accurate communication, and accurate communication requires being nitpicky.

No, if you used logic you would have known precisely what I meant. This is how discussion tends to work. If you think someone made a mistake or even a typo, rather than hinging on it as you people are doing, you would, as a good, honest, individual, attempt to make sure that the person you were talking to didn't really mean to say what they said.

I re-read your post several times to make sure it seemed reasonable that you did mean sea ice and not land ice. I saw no indication either way. I thought it best to err on the side of caution and attempt to correct possibly mis-informed thinking.

In a real face-to-face situation, it would have been a non-issue because of the real-time interaction allowing a "huh? sea ice?". We do not have that luxury here.

You made a huge mistake (very fatal to your argument). You made it even worse with your response.

My response corrected my mistake. I was taught as a young man to own up to your mistakes. I did that. And I get chastised for it. What a load of horse shit.

Your "correction" was extremely rude, and showed no signs of "owning up" to your mistake. What it showed is a complete disregard for accurate communication and an unwillingness to take responsibility for your mistakes.

You have negated everything you have ever said on this site because you have just now stated that what you have written may or may not be what you mean, and that we must guess which it is. A simple "I'm sorry, I meant land ice" would have actually made some repairs to your position.

You can no longer be trusted with anything you say, but not because you made the mistake.

Only in a culture of degenerates would this be true. People make mistakes. When they own up to them (even when said mistake was an obvious, logical conclusion), you should respect them for that. But no, you continue this banter because it makes you feel big and somehow legitimizes what you're saying.

I have absolutely no problem with you or anyone making a mistake. I make plenty of mistakes all the time. To have a problem with that would be hypocritical. I strive to not be hypocritical. I respect people who admit they make a mistake. However, I have no respect for people who in the same breath pretend that the mistake was trivial and that pointing it out was nitpicking.

When D'Alleo decided to use homogenized GISS data and claim that it was "raw" and was called out on it, he spun and didn't own up to his mistake. Yes I faulted you partially because it was the logical conclusion of what I was saying, but I did admit that I made a mistake.

Oh god you guys know I didn't mean sea ice but rather land ice at the poles. God you people are nitpicky and don't actually care about reasoned discussion.

That's your idea of admitting you made a mistake? You call that "owning up"? That is most definitely not "owning up". That's saying "Yeah, I made a mistake, but so what? It doesn't matter. You have no right to point it out to me." Yours is a crybaby's response, not that of a man "owning up" to his mistake. "Owning up" requires humility. You have shown none, and you still show none.

"Owning up" also requires integrity and respect for others, and taking responsibility. However, you have shown that you have neither integrity nor respect, and and that you refuse to take responsibility.

I spent all day wondering if maybe I had overreacted. I now rest assured that I had instead maybe under-reacted. You have shown here and in other recent threads that you nothing more than an irresponsible crybaby with no integrity or respect.

[Josh Cryer]

You belittled me with your stupid sea ice "explanation," as if I was too stupid to understand the difference. Read the rest of my comments in this thread and others, and it is clear that I know the difference.

Your "misinterpretation" or "failure to see the mistake" is just your delusional hatred of all things science. I have absolutely no desire to be respectful to people who continue to lie.

[MSimon]

You belittled me with your stupid sea ice "explanation," as if I was too stupid to understand the difference. Read the rest of my comments in this thread and others, and it is clear that I know the difference.

Your "misinterpretation" or "failure to see the mistake" is just your delusional hatred of all things science. I have absolutely no desire to be respectful to people who continue to lie.

You should clearly state in the definitions what level of explanation you find acceptable. And what levels you consider insulting. And appoint some third party arbiter of what you will accept so that considerations of bias will not enter into the judgment.

In addition an appellate panel should be provisionally formed in case there is a dispute about the judgment. The aggrieved party to pay all fees until judgment is rendered. In order to prevent favoritism the accused can pay an equal or greater fee to get a judgment in his favor.

I offer myself as a fair and impartial judge. I believe in open process. Let the bidding begin.

[taniwha]

What makes my explanation stupid? Is it because you already knew it? That means only that it is redundant, not stupid.

No, I didn't belittle you. You felt belittled. Why is that? Why are you so sensitive to having made the mistake? Might it be that until recently you believed sea ice melting was a problem? You certainly had it on your mind because otherwise you probably would not have made such a slip.

"Lie"? You've been using that word a lot lately. Worse, you don't back it up. Might it be that you can't?

Are you saying that I was lying? If so, what were my lies? I have said very little, and I believe that what I have said was either verifiable facts (maybe with some typos, eg forgetting "million" when asking about Pangaea), or my own opinions and speculations.

I note that you have no comment on the actual problem at hand: my perception of your irresponsibility, arrogance, childishness and, yes, possibly even dishonesty. Until now, I've only hinted at the last because I did not want to make such an accusation. Even now, I prefer to think that you are being honest. Might it be that you can't say anything?