Jon Stewart Rips Right-Wingers A New One

    When Unarmed Blacks Are Killed By Cops

    No Wrongdoing With Benghazi

    Right-Wingers Fuel Racism And Paranoia

Thursday, December 10, 2009

An Inconvenient Truth... Again, Period.

Thomas Lindaman wrote:

I see Mr. Leftist Blogger still can't handle the English language and has resorted to the "in order to debunk something, you have to have bunk" argument.

"Resorted" to it? That's what I've said from the beginning!

All you need to do to debunk something, by definition, is to ridicule the falsehood of a particular sentiment.

Which is what I'm saying, too! Why is this so difficult for you?

YOU: "The Hockey Stick has been debunked."

ME: "You have to have bunk before you can debunk it. There's no bunk in this case."

YOU: "The dictionary says Debunk means to expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of something."

ME: "Right. The falseness, sham, and/or exaggerated claims would be the bunk. There's no bunk in this case."

YOU: "You don't understand English."

ME: "Yes, I do. Our definitions are the same. We just disagree whether there's bunk or not."

YOU: "Here's another definition of Debunk: To expose or excoriate a claim as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated."

ME: "Right. The pretentiousness, falseness, and/or exaggeration would be the bunk. There's no bunk in this case."

YOU: "Here's another definition of Debunk: To expose the sham or falseness of something."

ME: "Right. The sham and/or falseness would be the bunk. There's no bunk in this case."

YOU: "I totally pwned you cause you changed the definition."

ME: "No, I didn't. Our definitions are the same. We're just disagreeing about whether there's bunk (falseness, sham, exaggeration, pretentiousness, nonsense, etc) in this particular case."

YOU: "Hey, Podium guys! I totally pwned him on the English language!"

ME: "..."

You keep bragging about how you pwned my understanding of the word, when we're both saying the same thing as far as the definition.

I have not, nor have I ever, disputed the dictionary definition. I agree with it, and I'm saying the same thing the dictionary is saying.

So why do you keep pretending like the definitions are different? The ONLY thing we're disagreeing on, is whether there's bunk or not. How can you brag about my not understanding the definition, when you can't even see that I AM going by the dictionary definition? Are you just trying to cloud the actual issue?

And given the multiple flaws with the hockey stick graph already exposed,

There are no "multiple flaws" with the hockey stick. There are people CLAIMING it, but it hasn't been PROVEN.

as well as the ClimateGate emails with the words "hide the decline" in them,

So? The "decline" was the decline of reliability of tree ring data compared to instrumental temperature data after 1960 (the data becomes more and more divergent). So they didn't use that unreliable data, in order to maintain accuracy. What's wrong with that? If they didn't hide the decline, the output would've been inaccurate. Heck, they're not even hiding the unreliable data, because you can get it elsewhere. They're just not using the unreliable data. Would you prefer they used the decline? That would make things inaccurate! What's wrong with hiding the decline?

it's clear that there was at least some falsehood in the hockey stick graph.


So, Mr. Leftist Blogger, your "you have to bunk something before you can debunk it" line is...well...bunk.

So you're saying you can debunk something when there's no bunk to begin with? That's like saying you can defrost a refrigerator without any frost in it.

Now, onto another point. You claim that some of the people I quoted as debunking the hockey stick graph weren't climatologists, so their debunking doesn't count.

They're CLAIMING there's bunk. But they haven't PROVEN it.

One tiny problem with that, sunshine. See, one aspect of AGW research that you've neglected is the use of computer models, including with the hockey stick graph. The problem with use of computer models is that they're only as good as the people doing the programming. As has been exposed already, the computer models being used to "prove" AGW was man-made were fundamentally flawed. And who exposed it? Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. As a result of this, McIntyre and McKitrick have been ridiculed and slandered by people like Mr. Leftist Blogger, but the fact remains: the computer models were wrong. And that's a damn tough thing to spin away, even for Al Gore's minions.

Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who are not climatologists, are CLAIMING the computer models are wrong, and their computer model is better. But they had to remove 80% of the proxy data from the 15th century to do it.

The National Academy of Sciences, and the National Research Council, both independent panels with nothing political to gain, after viewing ALL codes and ALL data, confirmed the Hockey Stick. Are they in on the conspiracy?

That's why I'm saying there's no bunk to debunk. Someone claiming there's bunk doesn't mean there's actually bunk. You can say they're claiming to debunk it, as that would be a lot more accurate.

YOU: "I have two arms."

ME: "You only have one arm!"

YOU: "Uh... No, I don't. I have two arms."

ME: "Doesn't matter, I still just debunked you! Because I'm ridiculing your claim of two arms!"

YOU: "So what if you're ridiculing it? You haven't proven I only have one arm."

ME: "I don't have to prove it! I can just ridicule it! I can CLAIM you have one arm! You're totally debunked!"

YOU: "..."

Now, are we going to continue to argue the definition of debunk, which we actually agree on?

If not, then here's a question: Why does the Hockey Stick bother you deniers so much? Because it was used in An Inconvenient Truth? Was it the hydraulic lift used for comedic effect that got under your skin? If you hate the Hockey Stick, for whatever reason, fine, throw it out. Ignore all that peer-reviewed evidence and data. That doesn't change the fact that AGW was well-known by climatologists long before that graph.

And while we're here, Mr. Leftist Blogger, I notice you haven't taken up for the "scientists" (read: pediatricians and veterinarians) who have signed onto AGW as being man-made. I'm sure you can provide us a link to a study done by, say, a pediatrician that has been peer reviewed and shows all the scientific heft your side claims to have on this subject. You'll understand if I don't hold my breath waiting for you to man up.

"What new form of madness is this?"

Lindaman, you said this in your previous post:

By the way, Mr. Leftist Blogger, are you aware that a chunk of your "97% of scientists" aren't climatologists, either? I guess when you're so desperate to "prove" a myth, you'll cling to anybody with an impressive sounding title to give your lame argument intellectual heft. Of course, I'm sure you could show us all the hard-hitting climate research done by pediatricians and veterinarians, two groups of "scientists" who have signed onto AGW.

I've said, from the very beginning, that it's 97% of CLIMATOLOGISTS, not generic "scientists." And you know that. Because that's what I said in the very last post, with the link (AGAIN).

So why in THIS post, are you STILL pretending that I claimed it was 97% of "scientists"? That's a blatant lie. You talk about manning up? How is lying being a man, "sunshine"?

I don't care, nor have I ever claimed to care, about what pediatricians and veterinarians think on AGW. Climatology is not their field of study.

"Clinging to NON-climatologists" is what the DENIERS do, including you.

And again I ask: How can ALL these climatologists be in one a huge, elaborate conspiracy? And what would they ALL have to gain from it?

UPDATE 12/13/09 And now a reply to a commenter on that Lindaman post:

This is fun.........."Bunk" per the online dictionary at Reference Center is a shortened version of "Bunkum"........ Etymology: Buncombe county, North Carolina; from a remark made by its congressman, who defended an irrelevant speech by claiming that he was speaking to Buncombe. But the leftist blogger who is such a witless wonder that he won't allow comments on his blog will insist that this definition is 'bunk'. Or maybe he will wish to debunk it sometime.

I agree with ALL the definitions. And yes, "Bunk" is a shortened from "Bunkum".

And "Bunkum" means "nonsense." http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bunkum In fact, the very first thing I said was "Bunk means nonsense." Which is probably what gave Lindaman the inspiration to drag all those dictionary terms into his posts to begin with. Because apparently I was supposed to say "Bunk means nonsense, falsity, exaggeration, pretension..." and the whole laundry list in order to be "right". Never mind the fact that I never disputed any of the dictionary terms. The only thing we're disagreeing on, is if there's bunk in the hockey stick graph. And as far as "wit," you're posting on a blog belonging to someone that thinks posting ":-)" at the end of every sentence with his racist chatroom buddies, is being clever.

But apparently just repeating the "you don't know what debunk means" over and over again makes the global temperature drop.

And Thomas Lindaman: You're still backing down.