Holocaust ... and other forms of Denial

[iceaura]

Given that the cited peer-reviewed data demonstrates a life-time of parenting does not significantly affect IQ, why do you assume apriori that 'white racism' is having a significant effect?

It's an observation of extreme likelihood, not an assumption. What I have listed for you above was a couple of dozen factors known to affect IQ and known to disproportionately afflict black people in the US. It was a partial list.

Some want to return to a state of limited government similar to what would have been found in the late-1800s early 1900s.

Like I said - uncanny.
You have a genuine knack for picking the exact reference that most directly and completely blows your immediate assertion to smithereens.

The best time for US black people in that span you selected would have been the carpetbagger era when the Federal government stationed soldiers all over the Confederacy and imposed oppressive Federal law and Federal edicts on the entire place.

When the Feds gave up and went home, the deregulated local governments launched what Wikipedia describes as the Lynching Era.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States

The response of black people - most of whom lived in the Confederacy at the time - was to flee to the cities of the North, where even the quickly established racial ghettos of abject poverty in the winters of Chicago and New York were better than the "limited government" of their home towns and family dwellings in the Confederacy. Their flight remains the largest human migration ever recorded on this planet, and the demographic structure it created in the US is what surrounds the US citizenry to this day.

Now am I going to see a demand from you that I provide scientific, peer-reviewed research evidence that this had "significant effects" on black people lasting to this day, or have we hit some kind of limit on the absurdity you are willing to post in public?

 

[Michael]

It's an observation of extreme likelihood, not an assumption. What I have listed for you above was a couple of dozen factors known to affect IQ and known to disproportionately afflict black people in the US. It was a partial list.

LOL
Um, no.

Before you can even begin to claim 'white racism' has a significant effect on 'black people' you must determine which 'effect' you want to measure. You said IQ was affected. But you haven't provided any evidence that it is affected in the least - let alone by 'white racism'. For all you know, the IQ of black people living in the USA is perfectly normal. As a matter of fact, that's the null. It's where you start. You start by assuming IQ is normal, then you proceed by controlling variables and determining if it changes.

ALL good evidence STRONGLY suggest that biological IQ is extremely resilient. The reason why Chinese score 100 on verbal reasoning in China and England, and score 110 on spatial reasoning in China and England, probably has absolutely nothing to do with how much fish they eat. How do we know? Because White English and White Irish score 100 on spatial reasoning and they have access to the same amount of fish. Not only is it unlikely to only affect spatial reasoning, but they act as two control groups for the norm.

Anyway, your geocentric model is falling to pieces under the glaring eyes science

 

[Michael]

I said 'some' black people - get this iceaura, black people are individuals - with their own ideas about what was good and what is shit. Some 'black' people look back in time and think life was best for 'all' people in the late 1800s. As a matter of fact, the literacy rate in some Chicago boroughs was higher then, than compared to now. Not to mention the sense of community, the beginnings of upward mobility, and etc...

For highly motivated high IQ black people - life was starting to look pretty f-ing good

Had the Progressives not given us the Central Bank, there probably wouldn't have been a great depression, possibly not a WWII. If Socialists hadn't given us hyper-regulation, we'd ALL be much more prosperous. Black Americans most of all, as they have been destroyed by progressive socialism.

 

[iceaura]

I wonder iceaura, why does the fish only affect spatial reasoning (110) with no effect on verbal reasoning (100)?

An example of your reasoning. By the evidence you could as easily conclude that eating fish depresses verbal IQ, or any number of other numbskull meanderings. Or you could actually check on whether eating fish is involved - surely many Chinese don't eat fish?

Instead, you picked - as a joke, purely by chance then - just about the only other population on the planet that 1) scored high on IQ tests and 2) also ate a lot of fish. Uncanny.

Before you can even begin to claim 'white racism' has a significant effect on 'black people' you must determine which 'effect' you want to measure.

But since I'm not bothering with any such claim, I'm off the hook.
I'll leave you to make the silly arguments, like this:

ALL good evidence STRONGLY suggest that biological IQ is extremely resilient. The reason why Chinese score 100 on verbal reasoning in China and England, and score 110 on spatial reasoning in China and England, probably has absolutely nothing to do with how much fish they eat. How do we know? Because White English and White Irish score 100 on spatial reasoning and they have access to the same amount of fish.

Absolutely uncanny.
The English and Irish are world famous for getting their protein from beef and mutton and milk and cheese and eggs and pork. The Chinese usually can't even digest milk easily, no matter where they live.

You couldn't have picked a worse comparison for your argument - and you had a world to choose from. You're a damn genius.

 

[Schmelzer]

It was in reply to your claims that increased plant growth was an "obvious" benefit of boosted CO2, increased rainfall an "obvious" benefit of increased water in the air, etc - none of those are obvious, because such things are not necessarily a benefit or a reliable consequence or even likely in most situations.

They are as obvious as imaginable in such complex things. All the complications you mention I have no problem to see. They don't change the overall conclusion. Moreover, it does not explain why you have falsified my position by introducing a "necessary".

Thanks for mentioning something written about in some science magazines. I have no doubt that such things are mentioned in the scientific literature, my claim of the complete failure to report something positive is the mass media.

Seems, you have completely forgotten the general picture for politicized sciences: The degree of distortion by political influence than increases in the following sequence:
1.) The content of scientific papers, especially footnotes.
2.) Conclusions and introductions of scientific papers,
3.) Abstracts of scientific papers,
4.) Titles of scientific papers,
5.) Statements made by scientists in popular media,
6.) Statements of journalists in media presentations where scientists also say something
7.) Statements of journalists in other media presentations.
Note also that already (1) is distorted, by several effects, namely honest scientists leaving politicized scientific domains, political influence on funding and publication (prejudiced peer-review).

Siberia is also too dry, too dark, too swampy, and lacks good topsoil. Plus, AGW will not prevent the occasional cold snap - so everything growing there will still have to withstand bitter cold. The disasters of AGW will have plenty of time to hit hard before Siberian tundra can support agriculture. And that is the common situation.

There are, of course, 1000s of other excuses why the positive consequences do not count, but all the negative ones count many times more. And I'm supposed to take your ideological babble seriously.

You consistently get it wrong. To recognize bias, you have to have a conception of reality.

Not necessarily. To predict the list above is pure sociology - how political interests will distort science. All you need for this prediction is some sociology. Some part of the sociological hypotheses used there can, of course, be questioned: For example, it is assumed that scientist search for truth. One can reasonably argue that this is a prejudice, and that scientists are as uninterested in truth as politicians and journalists. But I'm quite sure there is a sufficiently big difference, and scientists are really much more interested in finding truth than journalists and politicians.

Of course, to test this hypothesis one needs some conception of reality. But not that much. The general hypothesis can be, for example, tested in domains where science has made some progress despite the political pressure, so that the scientific version of reality already differs from the political wishes, and see what has been written before this. Or you can simply use particular facts. Like that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic: To reach the same heating effect (1 degree or so without any amplifications) you have to double the CO2 content. How is this fact presented in the literature?

I made no such claim.

I have quoted your text. So, no, my standard reply does not work for you at all, if works for me only because you lie and never support your lies with quotes.

You have judged scientific reports, including their factual content, to be properly evaluated as biased by a "Party line", based on assumptions you made in ignorance about the facts of the real world. And you refused to acquire better information, easily available to you.

Again, no quote, thus, as usual, a lie. See above, what I have presented a general theory, which suggests that science does not remain uninfluenced by political Party lines. But this is based on general sociological considerations,. I have tested this theory in other domains of science, domains I have not talked about here at all. But, even if I see a base for assuming science is prejudiced, I have never, I repeat, never, used this for rejecting any particular scientific paper. Because, even if not uninfluenced by political bias, science nonetheless remains the most uninfluenced by bias part of our society which is able to publish something.

That I refuse to believe your fantasies does not mean I refuse to acquire better information. Scientific information is difficult to obtain, if one has to suspect political bias and to care about this, one needs a lot of time - else, it would be easy, read an average review paper. I'm ready and able to to this, if a question is really interesting for me. But AGW is not that interesting, so I don't, except for a few questions where I defend a particular position.

 

[Michael]

Instead, you picked - as a joke, purely by chance then - just about the only other population on the planet that 1) scored high on IQ tests and 2) also ate a lot of fish.

White European Jews eat a lot of fish?

Uncanny.

Not really, your claim is that the subjective mental state of White People can lower the IQ of other people, in this case, Black people. You have not provided any evidence that this is indeed the case. As such, your claim is baseless.

I have provided evidence that IQ of minorities can, in fact, be higher than that of White People. I have shown numerous studies that demonstrate IQ, which measures brain function, is mostly biological. I have provided peer-reviewed studies that conclude IQ is robust, even in the face of parenting. PARENTING. Funny that. Uncanny really. I have provided evidence that Chinese living (and eating in England, including with their White adopted parents) have IQ scores of 110 on spatial reasoning. The same as Chinese living in lead-polluted, noise-polluted, wouldn't touch the fish with a 10 foot pole, China. German children who were Jewish, who lived through the holocaust, have IQ on average, higher than German non-Jews. Lastly, studies show repeatedly that socioeconomic status is strongly correlated with IQ. Which can be exacerbated by progressive regulatory capture and socialistic rent-seeking.

You on the other hand, have yet to provide a shred of evidence of what the IQ of black people is normally. You don't even have a control value. Yet, you stand there with a straight face and blame white people for their magical racism as the effect that lowers IQ. For all you know, white racism may be raising the IQ of black people.

You simply have ZERO evidence one way or the other. Have you ever thought to look at the IQ of African Americans and compare it to Africans living in Africa?

Sorry, but all of the evidence suggests you are wrong. As the evidence continues to mount, you'll be left standing next to the creationists.

 

[iceaura]

White European Jews eat a lot of fish?

C'mon. You don't usually register even the existence of my links, I know, but that one's right there.

As I linked for you, yes - and they have for centuries. Well known for it. And you picked that single example, out of all the possible people on this planet including immediate neighbors of the Chinese (Polynesians with low IQ, say, or Mongolian pastoralists with high), for your "joke" example - without even knowing, I believe.

This knack of yours would be spooky if it weren't so comical.

Not really, your claim is that the subjective mental state of White People can lower the IQ of other people, in this case, Black people.

I make no claims about the mental state of white people.

My claim is that you are denying white racism - which is observed behavior - in the US - which has a well recorded history of the period - and its effects on black people - which are and have been thoroughly documented and easily observed in part, and remain undocumented only in an even larger scale and more insidious scope.

The same as Chinese living in lead-polluted, noise-polluted, wouldn't touch the fish with a 10 foot pole, China.

Doubling down on the bullshit, I see. No one has ever controlled for such factors in measuring population average IQ.

You on the other hand, have yet to provide a shred of evidence of what the IQ of black people is normally.

"Normally"?
Neither have you. But my claims don't depend on it. Yours do.

And also on denial of white racism and its effects on black people in the US - the stupid, the smart, and all in between.

 

[iceaura]

Thanks for mentioning something written about in some science magazines. I have no doubt that such things are mentioned in the scientific literature, my claim of the complete failure to report something positive is the mass media.

But you make assessments of the science based on that evaluation of the mass media. You even make assumptions regarding the science (positive effects of rapidly increasing moisture in the air, of expanding ranges of organisms, and the like, for example, must exist and be significant, you say) and use them to evaluate the mass media bias, which you then use as evidence for the direction and nature of the politicized science bias

How do you spot the bias in the science? From the mass media. How do you spot the bias in the mass media? By comparison with assumptions about the science. How did you come by these assumptions? By spotting bias in the science.

That entire convoluted and occasionally circular pile of invalid bs you then use to justify denial of AGW, presenting that compilation of invalid reasoning and silly assumption as a "position", from which you evaluate the bias of others.

Seems, you have completely forgotten the general picture for politicized sciences: The degree of distortion by political influence than increases in the following sequence:
1.) The content of scientific papers, especially footnotes.
2.) Conclusions and introductions of scientific papers,
3.) Abstracts of scientific papers,
4.) Titles of scientific papers,
5.) Statements made by scientists in popular media,
6.) Statements of journalists in media presentations where scientists also say something
7.) Statements of journalists in other media presentations.
Note also that already (1) is distorted, by several effects, namely honest scientists leaving politicized scientific domains, political influence on funding and publication (prejudiced peer-review).

At the end of that list, here's your bottom line: you got the distortion, influence, politicization, etc, backwards. You ended up denying the reality of AGW on grounds of political bias in the scientific reports, and you were wrong about that bias. You - absurdly - denied physical reality on political grounds.

You tell me how that happened.

There are, of course, 1000s of other excuses why the positive consequences do not count, but all the negative ones count many times more.

Your chain of reasoning, and its conclusion, was invalid. And worse, it was dumb. The notion that simply warming currently cold places will make them suitable for agriculture is silly enough - the notion that because there are no places too hot for good agriculture the effects of AGW will not create any is bizarre. What were you thinking?

Not necessarily. To predict the list above is pure sociology - how political interests will distort science. All you need for this prediction is some sociology.

Dude: wake up. You keep getting things wrong - that's why.

You got the direction of political pressure on AGW research in the US wrong. Not just the degree, or the consequences, but the entire direction - completely backwards. That is essentially because you are ignorant about the physical facts.

And - as with racism etc - you maintain that ignorance willfully, you deny those facts as you encounter them later, on "sociological" grounds. Propaganda you suckered for, essentially. That is where the absurdity comes from - that denial.

 

[Schmelzer]

But you make assessments of the science based on that evaluation of the mass media.

Nonsense. I criticize the mass media as liars. That they consistently lie in the same direction (AGW is pure horror) shows a strong political interest behind. This strong interest can be easily identified as a globalist one - one needs global problems to justify world government - which fits with the point that the origin of the hysteria are Western media.

As I have argued, this political pressure will influence science too. But science will be much less influenced by this pressure in comparison with the presstitutes. So, I make conclusions from the mass media to the existence of political pressure, which suggests also some influence on science, but the size of this influence is, given that it is lower than what we can see in the press, not precisely identifiable. The result may be simply that some critical research will not be done, not that the research done is somehow faulty.

How do you spot the bias in the science? From the mass media. How do you spot the bias in the mass media? By comparison with assumptions about the science. How did you come by these assumptions? By spotting bias in the science.

Nice try, but I have not spotted a particular bias in AGW science. I think there will be some, possibly even a big one, but I do not claim to be able to spot which claims of climate scientists are biased and which not.

But, given my theory about the bias, which is "science bias lower than media bias, but in the same direction" , I can simply use, as the starting approximation, "science bias does not exist". Thus, I can use the scientific results, as if they were unbiased, compare them with the media, and the difference gives the direction of the bias, and moreover a lower bound for the real bias.

And, again, I do not deny AGW. And I have, in particular, not rejected any particular scientific paper.

The notion that simply warming currently cold places will make them suitable for agriculture is silly enough - the notion that because there are no places too hot for good agriculture the effects of AGW will not create any is bizarre.

You cannot argue without distortions? There are places too cold for agriculture. Quite large regions in Siberia, Northern Canada. Some of them may become suitable for agriculture, some will become better suited for what they are used already now, lumbering. Some not. But this does not change the expected average that the result will be positive. I do not have to assume that they will all become suitable for agriculture, and never did such things.
Then, if there are no places too hot for good agriculture now. If there is enough water, what we obtain in the hottest regions are tropical forests, and these are not even close to being too hot for plant growth. Of course, if the increase in temperature is loo large, such regions too hot may appear. But this is something far away, important in hysterical fantasies of some AGW proponents only. Of course, there are many plants and animals which find many regions too hot already today. But there are others who find them quite comfortable.

You got the direction of political pressure on AGW research in the US wrong.

You think so, but I do not care. That there will be always some fanatics who are more extreme than the media, thus, see the direction of distortion and political pressure different, is predictable, they are necessary part of any hysteria. You have made sufficiently clear that you are one of such extremists, given that you have presented the IPCC as prejudiced in the other direction.

Time to learn for you that simple claims are not arguments, even if repeated many times, and distortions of the position of your opponents is simply amoral behavior, and not an argument too. But I doubt you will learn it - you are not even interested. You are a Party soldier, and so your job is simply to repeat the Party line, as often as possible, and to attack all those who don't support the Party line, with personal attacks, and defamations and distortions are appropriate weapons for Party soldiers.

 

[iceaura]

"But you make assessments of the science based on that evaluation of the mass media."
Nonsense. I criticize the mass media as liars. That they consistently lie in the same direction (AGW is pure horror) shows a strong political interest behind. This strong interest can be easily identified as a globalist one - one needs global problems to justify world government - which fits with the point that the origin of the hysteria are Western media.

So why did you say "nonsense", and then support my claim? I rest my case.

You are evaluating and discounting and dismissing research findings based on your opinion of their bias, which you derived from your screwed up analysis of the mass media reports, without checking the physical facts at all.

And, again, I do not deny AGW. And I have, in particular, not rejected any particular scientific paper.

You deny the lot of them - you explicitly claim doubting them and evaluating them according to your media-derived presumptions of bias is a "position".

But, given my theory about the bias, which is "science bias lower than media bias, but in the same direction"

That's more than an error - it's a blunder. Until you quit doing that, you will be denying physical fact in public - absurdly.

That there will be always some fanatics who are more extreme than the media, thus, see the direction of distortion and political pressure different, is predictable, they are necessary part of any hysteria. You have made sufficiently clear that you are one of such extremists, given that you have presented the IPCC as prejudiced in the other direction

Once again pretending this is about the media.
You think you can determine the IPCC bias without familiarizing yourself with the physical facts. You can't. You don't know what the IPCC bias is, because you have discounted the research findings according to the bias you think you have discovered in media reports.

Then, if there are no places too hot for good agriculture now. If there is enough water, what we obtain in the hottest regions are tropical forests, and these are not even close to being too hot for plant growth. Of course, if the increase in temperature is loo large, such regions too hot may appear. But this is something far away, important in hysterical fantasies of some AGW proponents only.

You don't even know what a load of invalid presumption and ignorant bs you just posted there, do you.

What you just posted there is a denial of the research findings and scientific reports and model calculations and measured trends and so forth that support the finding and description and predictions we call "AGW".

You claimed not to deny the science, etc. You claimed not to deny AGW. You just did - right there.

But this does not change the expected average that the result will be positive.

That's not the expected average during the upcoming AGW event. You are wrong about that.

The "average outcome" in the boreal forest and tundra regions (the common and widespread events of the next couple of hundred years) is predicted to be negative, most likely. It might be positive, but the odds are strongly against that. It is more likely to be catastrophically negative than even slightly positive, on average. The reason is that the likely change rate is too high and the total change too large for beneficial adjustments to catch up for a long time, while the injuries and harms are expected to be quick and substantial.

You insist on presenting claims of physical reality without informing yourself about the physical circumstances or the research findings. Use your good common sense: what are your odds?

 

[Syne]

I quoted you, at the time.

It's sad how often you repeat this lie...thinking anyone is going to fall for it (other than mods who provide cover for your trolling).

Let me start by saying that iceaura has nailed it in this thread. And here we have yet more clear evidence of denial from three of the usual suspects.
...
The evidence that you are a denier is in every post you make. As iceaura has repeatedly stated, there's no point trying to walk you through all the evidence for the things you deny. You already know about a lot of that stuff. That's what makes you a denier rather that just a fool.

Great! Then maybe you can do what he seems constitutionally incapable. Namely, define your terms, cite actual evidence that demonstrates causation (instead of the anecdotal sort that might show questionable correlation and fails to eliminate alternative causes, at best). We'll be waiting...just as we've been doing while humoring iceaura.

 

[Schmelzer]

So why did you say "nonsense", and then support my claim?

If you are unable to see the difference between my statement and your nonsense, I give up.

You are evaluating and discounting and dismissing research findings based on your opinion of their bias, which you derived from your screwed up analysis of the mass media reports, without checking the physical facts at all.

No. I have never dismissed here any research finding. Then, my opinion about the bias I have derived from studying scientific papers and comparing them with what is presented in the mass media. Not for AGW, but other domains of science, and this has not been discussed here at all. The study of that paper about child labor has nicely supported my points, and was the only example discussed here, but even this was only some accidental support from another domain. AGW was not involved at all.

You deny the lot of them - you explicitly claim doubting them and evaluating them according to your media-derived presumptions of bias is a "position".

I have never denied here any scientific study. So, please a quote, liar. That doubting and evaluating scientific papers in a reasonable position is correct, but unrelated to anything discussed here.

That's more than an error - it's a blunder.

In this case, it would be easy to present any arguments, evidence, or whatever to justify your claim. Once you present nothing, all we can see is that you don't like this theory.

You think you can determine the IPCC bias without familiarizing yourself with the physical facts. You can't. You don't know what the IPCC bias is, because you have discounted the research findings according to the bias you think you have discovered in media reports.

And therefore I make no claims about any particular statements made by the IPCC. So, I'm also not denying what the IPCC claims. But, again, I have not discounted any research findings.

What you just posted there is a denial of the research findings and scientific reports and model calculations and measured trends and so forth that support the finding and description and predictions we call "AGW".

No. But feel free to support your accusation with particular research findings, scientific reports, model calculations and so on which I'm "denying". Without any such support, you have simply lied, once more.

It might be positive, but the odds are strongly against that. It is more likely to be catastrophically negative than even slightly positive, on average. The reason is that the likely change rate is too high and the total change too large for beneficial adjustments to catch up for a long time, while the injuries and harms are expected to be quick and substantial.

I have never doubted that what you name - a too high change rate and a too large total change - will cause negative effects.

But up to now the change rate was acceptable, to total change too, and the effect caused by CO2 is logarithmic - thus, you have to double CO2 to get the same effect again.

 

[iceaura]

No. I have never dismissed here any research finding. - -
- - -
I have never denied here any scientific study. So, please a quote, liar
- - -
And therefore I make no claims about any particular statements made by the IPCC. So, I'm also not denying what the IPCC claims. But, again, I have not discounted any research findings.

I quoted you dismissing, denying, claiming, and so forth, one particular aspect - that AGW research has discovered a serious threat of excessive heat making some current agricultural regions unfarmable and even uninhabitable for part of the year. I said: "right there", and handed you the quote.

The more interesting question on this thread is: How would you know? Your dismissal of specific research findings - such as the differential spread of harmful diseases and organisms rather than beneficial ones, or the unreliability of CO2 boosting of plant growth providing benefits - has been without apparent awareness. But this lack of awareness, this ignorance, is something you maintain - you defend it, as a political stance or position.

And that is the central feature of the absurd denial.

But up to now the change rate was acceptable, to total change too, and the effect caused by CO2 is logarithmic

There you go again, denying and claiming and dismissing, exactly as you say you don't.

The measured rates of several changes have been alarming, higher than predicted from earlier simple considerations - near panic level; the likely range of incoming total change as predicted by theory, model, evidence, projected trends in the measured factors, and sound arguments biological and physical and sociopolitical includes a serious (digit level, some think double digit) probability of global catastrophe. The known measured and potential effects of this CO2 boosting include several tipping points at which the rates of change of various aspects (ice melt, methane release, rainfall pattern changes, ocean current and level changes, biological response to ocean warming and acidification, etc) are not "logarithmic", but instead become linear or even exponential over short intervals.

And so forth.

We are depending on luck to avoid disaster, and the research says the odds are getting worse rather than better. If we lose any of these gambles, the effects are not "logarithmic", but sudden and significant. That is what the science shows to be physical reality of AGW.

You keep saying silly and ignorant things like that because you willfully refuse to recognize the physical realities as discovered by research and elucidated by standard theory.

That refusal is denial of AGW. You are denying AGW. And you are denying it on political grounds - as a reaction to what you see as "globalist" influence on media presentations.

 

[Schmelzer]

I quoted you dismissing, denying, claiming, and so forth, one particular aspect - that AGW research has discovered a serious threat of excessive heat making some current agricultural regions unfarmable and even uninhabitable for part of the year. I said: "right there", and handed you the quote.

I have made some claim about Siberia, and you start to talk about something completely different, as if that would be somehow related. Again, I have never claimed that there will be no negative consequences of warming.

The more interesting question on this thread is: How would you know? Your dismissal of specific research findings - such as the differential spread of harmful diseases and organisms rather than beneficial ones, or the unreliability of CO2 boosting of plant growth providing benefits - has been without apparent awareness.

The dismissal exists in your fantasy only.

There you go again, denying and claiming and dismissing, exactly as you say you don't.

I'm not dismissing anything. The logarithmic character of the pure CO2 effect is basic physics. Ok, feel free to tell us about exponential effects. But not without references to particular scientific papers.

 

[iceaura]

I have made some claim about Siberia, and you start to talk about something completely different, as if that would be somehow related.

The ridiculousness of the contortions necessary to defend an absurd denial are relevant in this thread. They establish the situation: an absurd denial is a denial of common reality, of the basis of all the lines and positions and stances open to reasonable discussion.

Here is an example - just one, of the several I quoted for him in responding - of what that poster labels "some claim about Siberia"

Then, if there are no places too hot for good agriculture now. If there is enough water, what we obtain in the hottest regions are tropical forests, and these are not even close to being too hot for plant growth. Of course, if the increase in temperature is loo large, such regions too hot may appear. But this is something far away, important in hysterical fantasies of some AGW proponents only.

I said "right there", and handed him that quote.

This kind of absurdity is completely characteristic of the absurd denial.
So is this:

"The more interesting question on this thread is: How would you know? Your dismissal of specific research findings - such as the differential spread of harmful diseases and organisms rather than beneficial ones, or the unreliability of CO2 boosting of plant growth providing benefits - has been without apparent awareness."
The dismissal exists in your fantasy only.

So you are still unaware of the dismissal of research and analysis you exhibited when you found evidence of scientific bias in the lack of attention to beneficial organism spread and beneficial plant growth you think you observed in the mass media.

I'm not dismissing anything. The logarithmic character of the pure CO2 effect is basic physics. Ok, feel free to tell us about exponential effects. But not without references to particular scientific papers.

When you require that other people produce evidence that CO2 boosting has had and will have many significant effects, you are denying AGW.

 

[Schmelzer]

Here is an example - just one, of the several I quoted for him in responding - of what that poster labels "some claim about Siberia"
I said "right there", and handed him that quote.
This kind of absurdity is completely characteristic of the absurd denial.

You forget that there is something missed. Namely, scientific papers which claim the opposite. You have none presented. None at all. Feel free to present them.

Just for clarification: There is no denial if one makes a claim which is simply wrong, not knowing some scientific paper which makes the opposite claim. The denial begins when the scientific evidence is presented and I reject what is written in this paper. Up to now, the research you claim exists seems to exist only in your fantasy. Present it.

When you require that other people produce evidence that CO2 boosting has had and will have many significant effects, you are denying AGW.

A completely new criterion. You can make accusations and do not have to present the evidence. But, ok, in some sense nothing new - this is what totalitarian ideas about justice are.

By the way, I have never denied that the CO2 effects may be significant. I have not made statements about its significance. I have made the claim that the basic effect is a logarithmic one. You have to double CO2 to get the same increase we already have again. I do not deny that there may be side effects which amplify the warming, I have not made statements about them.

 

[iceaura]

You forget that there is something missed. Namely, scientific papers which claim the opposite. You have none presented. None at all. Feel free to present them.

Not in this thread. Drag your red herring elsewhere - this thread is about absurd denial, such as your denial of AGW.

There is no denial if one makes a claim which is simply wrong, not knowing some scientific paper which makes the opposite claim.

Yeah, there is. You only get to use ignorance as your excuse for an absurd denial and horseshit reasoning once - and in such famous and well-established arenas as AGW, the Holocaust, Jim Crow in America, the moon landing, and so forth, even once is pushing it. (If somebody justifies denying the Holocaust by claiming ignorance of the events of WWII, they don't get to do that twice, and nobody has to run around finding scientific papers proving the existence of Germany in 1938).

When you require that other people produce evidence that CO2 boosting has had and will have many significant effects, you are denying AGW.
A completely new criterion.

? I've been repeating myself like that for this entire thread.

By the way, I have never denied that the CO2 effects may be significant.

They have been established as significant beyond a reasonable doubt for decades. That's called AGW - that's what AGW is.

I have not made statements about its significance.

Yes, you have.

I have made the claim that the basic effect is a logarithmic one.

Meaningless. AGW is not a "logarithmic effect".

I do not deny that there may be side effects which amplify the warming, I have not made statements about them.

When you say "may be", you are in denial of AGW. When you claim to have made no statements about them, you are contradicted by that "may be", and also by many statements you have made about them - some of which I have quoted and brought to your attention, above.

The contortions of reasoning necessary for absurd denial are characteristic.

 

[Schmelzer]

Not in this thread.

You have to present the evidence for your lies where you make them. But we all know already that you make personal accusations everywhere, and give evidence for them nowhere.

Meaningless. AGW is not a "logarithmic effect".

You cannot without distortion? The basic effect, which is what justifies to say that all this is a human fault, is greenhouse effect of CO2, is logarithmic. The resulting AGW may be something different, who knows,

When you say "may be", you are in denial of AGW.

No. I'm in denial if I say "there is no such effect". I'm not in denial if I say "may be, may be not". But. I know, this is about the common sense use of "denial". For Party soldiers, I'm in denial if I refuse to support the Party line.

 

[iceaura]

The basic effect, which is what justifies to say that all this is a human fault, is greenhouse effect of CO2, is logarithmic. The resulting AGW may be something different, who knows,

When you say "who knows" about matters of established fact and common reality, that's called "denial".

Meanwhile, the larger point is that it makes no difference at all whether the greenhouse effect directly from CO2, before the various amplifications etc, is logarithmic, logistic (closer to reality, iirc), linear, or any other increasing function. What matters is the reality of the effect - its size, and its significance. And that is completely obvious, even to somebody who knows nothing about AGW.

So the question of interest in the thread is: Why do you keep bringing it up - to highlight your unfamiliarity with AGW? As evidence that your claims of ignorance are well founded?

Why do absurd deniers insist on repeating meaningless bits of trivia and demanding we pay attention to them instead of the matter they are denying?

Because you and "logarithmic" are not the only such pair: When you emphasize an irrelevancy like the logarithmic relationship of trapped heat to CO2 concentration you remind me of where your gullible self has been getting other aspects of your worldview in the first place - that's a common one of five or six similarly meaningless factoids used by the corporate media minions in the US to confuse and deny AGW (it's in the same pile with "CO2 is a trace gas; CO2 is a natural gas normally found in the air; volcanoes emit lots of CO2; CO2 is a nutrient that plants need" and so forth and so what).

No. I'm in denial if I say "there is no such effect". I'm not in denial if I say "may be, may be not".

You are in denial when you say "maybe not" about matters of common reality and established fact. Your denial becomes absurd when you defend it instead of recognizing that common reality at the earliest opportunity.

 

[Schmelzer]

When you say "who knows" about matters of established fact and common reality, that's called "denial".

So if I don't know everything established somewhere in some scientific journal this is called "denial"? In this case, all honest people are deniers. And the only people who are not deniers are those sheeple who do not care at all about evidence but simply follow the Party line.

Meanwhile, the larger point is that it makes no difference at all whether the greenhouse effect directly from CO2, before the various amplifications etc, is logarithmic, logistic (closer to reality, iirc), linear, or any other increasing function. What matters is the reality of the effect - its size, and its significance. And that is completely obvious, even to somebody who knows nothing about AGW.

For somebody who knows nothing about AGW the thing which is completely obvious is the Party line, because it is prayed by all the media. AGW is real, it is a horrible catastrophe, humankind is the perpetrator, and one needs a world government to prevent this horrible outcome.

Why do you keep bringing it up - to highlight your unfamiliarity with AGW?

I have to, given that you distribute a lot of various lies about my position, I have, at least from time to time, remember what I have said and defended and what I have not said. Boring repetition of the truth is essentially all one can do if confronted with permanent repetitions of lies.

When you emphasize an irrelevancy like the logarithmic relationship of trapped heat to CO2 concentration you remind me of ....

Whatever happens in your fantasy, who cares. I don't think that the logarithmic relationship is irrelevant. It tells something about the most important question: How important is the human contribution, and what one has to expect from the human contribution in future. And, again, I do not care if Hitler has repeated that 2+2=4 or not, and, similarly, do not care if some evil "corporate media" use arguments which "remind" my own.