[kmx1974]

Originally Posted by Abewest

Oh look. Another massive fail. You're good at this.

I've already explained why I thought it was a bit out there

This meandering babble? That's not an explanation, that's an unevidenced allegation of history that I'm supposed to believe, a propos of nothing, contains an, also unevidenced, explanation, all of which is couched in a bunch of your witless rhetorical slurs. None of it goes to why you think research is a bit out there.

Provide us something substantiative, this merry-go-round of you constantly claiming to be right in the face of evidence to the contrary is getting very old. Prove your right or shut up.

[kmx1974]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Patience for editing your code.. nowhere. So let's go back to the original claim, which was nlp's-

No, let's not, let's keep the goal posts exactly where they are and deal with the claim I am questioning:

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

this is why Arctic's losing ice mass whilst Antarctica is gaining it.

Where is your "evidence, and empirical observation" for this claim?

Three times you have failed to answer this specific question (I predict 4 shortly). I'm forced to conclude that there is no proof to support your assertion and your championing of "evidence, and empirical observation" was nothing more than a smoke screen designed to hide the weakness of your position.

[Abewest]

[quote]

Originally Posted by kmx1974

This meandering babble? That's not an explanation, that's an unevidenced allegation of history that I'm supposed to believe, a propos of nothing, contains an, also unevidenced, explanation, all of which is couched in a bunch of your witless rhetorical slurs. None of it goes to why you think research is url=http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=60533349&highlight=#post60533349]a bit out there[/url].

Like andy, you get funnier as the hole gets deeper.

But OK, seeing as you've now practically morphed into him, show me where I said "research" is a bit out there. I did say andy's research in this particular instance was pretty out there. I then explained to you the context, but still you ignore that to make your risible point.

Provide us something substantiative, this merry-go-round of you constantly claiming to be right in the face of evidence to the contrary is getting very old. Prove your right or shut up.

What *evidence* would that be? Your inclination to wear out your shovel? I've proved that twice now. But let's go for as third time, why not?

Tell me something, would it surprise you to know that andy's very first response to this sentence:

"BTW, I read this in one of the comments.... : Is it true - a question to the AGW aficionados who regularly haunt this thread."

Was this:

I doubt it, sceptics aren't known for their honesty, witness Jellied Eel's careful omission of the word "sized" when talking about Greenpeace's new vessel.

I wonder if he has a Ferrari sized car...

Nice and friendly tone. Bit jokey too. No mention of any digs at anyone.

It wasn't until njp claimed that the phrase wasn't exactly to his liking because in his opinion it wasn't that of a neutral, that andy then jumped on the bandwagon and sided with njp- as he's blindly apt to do. As you're also blindly apt to do ,no matter the subject under discussion, and as you're more than proving right now.

I then explained that the question was aimed at sceptics and pros alike, and this was borne out by the fact that JE had also responded with an answer to the question (Are you getting this now? Even just a little? If not, just tell me what you still don't understand and I'll try and simplify it even further).

To reiterate for you: andy initially responded in a reasonable manner, but faithful follower that he is, he was then all over it just as soon as njp decided that he didn't like the turn of phrase. I actually put him on ignore after that, as it wasn't worth the hassle; he was just an echo of njp. Much like you're now little more than an echo of andy.

And for the umpteenth time (I predict this won't make a blind bit of difference to you), I was fascinated when he then went back to find this post, given that it had all been explained back then, and I had more or less apologised if anyone took it the wrong way. You still with me? It wasn't *research* per se, no matter how much you keep wishing it to be so, and however often you stupidly keep repeating this line. It was this particular research in this particular instance.

I've already told you all this -- is there something wrong with you that you don't or can't get it?


PS. If you are indeed a bit simple, then I apologise for that last remark.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by kmx1974

No, let's not, let's keep the goal posts exactly where they are and deal with the claim I am questioning

You're questioning nlp's claim, but hey, I'm here to help.. Although unless you adopt a simpler posting style using less embedded code, I'll likely not bother wasting time replying in future..

.. was nothing more than a smoke screen designed to hide the weakness of your position.

Or just smoke to flush out the weakness of your argument. But you want some empirical stuff, so here you go-

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...4/fulltext.pdf

Although
recent reports of large and increasing rates of mass loss with time from GRACE-based
studies cite agreement with IOM results, our evaluation does not support that conclusion.

Arctic estimates suffer from similar challenges, ie mass vs extent and attempting to attribute wind/current effects to anthropomorphicism.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by Abewest

PS. If you are indeed a bit simple, then I apologise for that last remark.

well, he does like to write in crayon when he thinks he's making a point.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by Abewest

I then explained that the question was aimed at sceptics and pros alike

I've no idea where this bit came from-

..witness Jellied Eel's careful omission of the word "sized" when talking about Greenpeace's new vessel.

and curious why I would've avoided the opportunity to add something like 'super-sized' or 'king-sized' when talking about Greenpeace's latest superyacht. At least their latest oil-burner can do more to break up Arctic ice than their old one.

As for..

I wonder if he has a Ferrari sized car...

Well, I do actually. Also not sure if it's flattering or worrying that the believers are keeping such detailed records. There's a fringe religion that runs a climate 'science' site that does similar. Must be time soon to break out the clam again and see if I can wake their ancestral memories.

ps.. Ok I found it. A year and a bit later, still not sure how 'carefully omiiting' sized helps. My comment-

Other businesses may have a harder time justifying £14m super yachts to their share holders.

So super-sized makes it better?

[kmx1974]

Originally Posted by Abewest

show me where I said "research" is a bit out there.

Okay:

Originally Posted by Abewest

research in this particular instance was pretty out there.

[kmx1974]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

I'll likely not bother wasting time replying in future.

It won't alter much, you haven't bothered replying in the past

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

here you go-

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...4/fulltext.pdf

From the abstract:

Our preferred estimate for 1992–2001 is -47 Gt/year for West Antarctica, ?16 Gt/year for East Antarctica, and -31 Gt/year overall

Hardly supports your claim that the "Arctic's losing ice mass whilst Antarctica is gaining it".

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by kmx1974

It won't alter much, you haven't bothered replying in the past

I try to avoid futile gestures, unless there's something in your posts that appeal to my sense of humor./

Hardly supports your claim that the "Arctic's losing ice mass whilst Antarctica is gaining it".

Sure it does. Plenty of cherries to pick from and you picked the hottest. Here's a colder one-

Our preferred estimate for 1992–2001 is -47 Gt/year for West
Antarctica, +16 Gt/year for East Antarctica, and -31 Gt/year overall (+0.1 mm/year
SLE), not including part of the Antarctic Peninsula (1.07% of the AIS area).

Which provides more context. SLE's Sea Level Equivalent btw.. So that rate's somewhat below James Hansen's normal projections. But there's lots more cherries in that paper-

Generally, the range of estimates in
IPCC07 encompassed the errors listed in the studies, but as noted in the report, a mid-range
value does not indicate a more reliable estimate, and the composite errors listed in each
study do not define confidence limits because important components lack formal statistical
derivation.

So lots of uncertainties. Not much data. BAU for climate science.

Also missed a chance with Greenpeace's megayacht. Apparently they crowd-sourced funding (from the renewables industry?) to buy bits of the ship. If I'd have known that, I'd have bought the sea-cocks, then hired a French lawyer to seize and get them for me..

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

I've no idea where this bit came from-

..witness Jellied Eel's careful omission of the word "sized" when talking about Greenpeace's new vessel.

and curious why I would've avoided the opportunity to add something like 'super-sized' or 'king-sized' when talking about Greenpeace's latest superyacht. At least their latest oil-burner can do more to break up Arctic ice than their old one.

As for..

I wonder if he has a Ferrari sized car...

Well, I do actually. Also not sure if it's flattering or worrying that the believers are keeping such detailed records. There's a fringe religion that runs a climate 'science' site that does similar. Must be time soon to break out the clam again and see if I can wake their ancestral memories.

ps.. Ok I found it. A year and a bit later, still not sure how 'carefully omiiting' sized helps. My comment-

Other businesses may have a harder time justifying £14m super yachts to their share holders.

So super-sized makes it better?

Their new vessel was yacht sized, not a yacht, in the same way your car is Ferrari sized, not a Ferrari.

Simples.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by andykn

Their new vessel was yacht sized, not a yacht,

Ok, so it's maybe 5m under current superyacht size classifications. I guess superyacht owners didn't want to be grouped with a bunch of floating hippies.

in the same way your car is Ferrari sized, not a Ferrari.

Which Ferrari? Are you saying my car's fat?

[kmx1974]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

I try to avoid futile gestures, unless there's something in your posts that appeal to my sense of humor.

I tend to avoid national stereotypes in my humour, so that's not likely to happen.

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Sure it does. Plenty of cherries to pick from and you picked the hottest. Here's a colder one-

Our preferred estimate for 1992–2001 is -47 Gt/year for West
Antarctica, +16 Gt/year for East Antarctica, and -31 Gt/year overall (+0.1 mm/year
SLE), not including part of the Antarctic Peninsula (1.07% of the AIS area).

Which provides more context. SLE's Sea Level Equivalent btw.. So that rate's somewhat below James Hansen's normal projections. But there's lots more cherries in that paper-

Generally, the range of estimates in
IPCC07 encompassed the errors listed in the studies, but as noted in the report, a mid-range
value does not indicate a more reliable estimate, and the composite errors listed in each
study do not define confidence limits because important components lack formal statistical
derivation.

So lots of uncertainties.

Which would all be very well if I was challenging the statement "Arctic's losing ice mass whilst Antarctica's ice mass balance shows greater uncertainty", but I'm not. I'm challenging the assertion "Arctic's losing ice mass whilst Antarctica is gaining it" and that's not supported by your link.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Ok, so it's maybe 5m under current superyacht size classifications. I guess superyacht owners didn't want to be grouped with a bunch of floating hippies.

As it's only the same size as a yacht, but not a yacht, that's not likely to happen. Do you think Roman Abramovich worries about people getting his vessel mixed up with the isle of Wight ferry?

Which Ferrari? Are you saying my car's fat?

No, but I am saying it's not a Ferrari just because it's the same size as a Ferrari.

[Abewest]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

well, he does like to write in crayon when he thinks he's making a point.

Munching on it too, by the looks of things.

[Abewest]

Originally Posted by kmx1974

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abewest
show me where I said "research" is a bit out there.

Okay:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abewest
research in this particular instance was pretty out there.

Wow. Just wow. That's the best bit of selective cherry picking from you yet. And if you want to get really pedantic and technical, that actually disproves your point. Or were you not aware of that? Not to mention that all that you conveniently left out slaughtered it completely.

I think that just about says it all.

[kmx1974]

Originally Posted by Abewest

Wow. Just wow. That's the best bit of selective cherry picking from you yet.

Hey, the terms of reference were yours, not mine:

Originally Posted by Abewest

show me where I said "research" is a bit out there.

I din't pick them, much less cherry pick them. And I only used the second example of you saying research was a "bit out there" because you got upset at me linking to the first time you said research was "a bit out there":

Originally Posted by Abewest

Not to mention that all that you conveniently left out slaughtered it completely.

The only thing you've slaughtered is reason, your petulant hollering is not an explanation, neither is this drivel:

Originally Posted by Abewest

Nice and friendly tone. Bit jokey too. No mention of any digs at anyone.

It wasn't until njp claimed that the phrase wasn't exactly to his liking because in his opinion it wasn't that of a neutral, that andy then jumped on the bandwagon and sided with njp- as he's blindly apt to do. As you're also blindly apt to do ,no matter the subject under discussion, and as you're more than proving right now.

I then explained that the question was aimed at sceptics and pros alike, and this was borne out by the fact that JE had also responded with an answer to the question (Are you getting this now? Even just a little? If not, just tell me what you still don't understand and I'll try and simplify it even further).

To reiterate for you: andy initially responded in a reasonable manner, but faithful follower that he is, he was then all over it just as soon as njp decided that he didn't like the turn of phrase. I actually put him on ignore after that, as it wasn't worth the hassle; he was just an echo of njp. Much like you're now little more than an echo of andy.

And for the umpteenth time (I predict this won't make a blind bit of difference to you), I was fascinated when he then went back to find this post, given that it had all been explained back then, and I had more or less apologised if anyone took it the wrong way. You still with me? It wasn't *research* per se, no matter how much you keep wishing it to be so, and however often you stupidly keep repeating this line. It was this particular research in this particular instance.

I've already told you all this -- is there something wrong with you that you don't or can't get it?


PS. If you are indeed a bit simple, then I apologise for that last remark.

There was a bit of knock about fun, wires were crossed, then swords, but it all worked out okay in the end. So what? Why does that make it "a bit out there" when someone checks their facts before reporting them?

[Abewest]

[quote]

Originally Posted by kmx1974

Hey, the terms of reference were yours, not mine:
I din't pick them, much less cherry pick them. And I only used the second example of you saying research was a "bit out there" because you got upset at me linking to the first time you said research was "a bit out there":

No. I refuse to believe anyone can be this silly. It's just not possible.

The only thing you've slaughtered is reason, your petulant hollering is not an explanation, neither is this drivel:There was a bit of knock about fun, wires were crossed, then swords, but it all worked out okay in the end. So what? Why does that make it "url=http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=60533349#post60533349]a bit out there[/url]" when someone checks their facts before reporting them?

I stand corrected. I think I better watch what I'm saying now. I could just be dealing with someone who's, shall we say, not really too aware of what he's doing.

One final attempt at this. It wasn't a bit out there because he'd checked his facts, it was a bit out there because he was seemingly intent on raising that issue again in an attempt to make a point. Which was why I was curious as to whether he remembered it verbatim or went to the trouble of digging up that old post from over a year ago - something that we'd sorted out way back - and was about to rehash it all over again.

Get it? Get it? Please tell me you finally, finally get it. For your own sake more than anything else.

Or are you still determined to put your own slant on it, no matter what. It's still funny, but in all honesty it's also a little bit disturbing too. But never mind. Practise makes perfect. And God so loves a trier.

Now take that crayon out your mouth, wipe your face incase it marks the pillow and you get into trouble, and get yourself off to bed. Do they even know you're up at this time? Is it a safe environment? You don't have unrestricted access to a gas cooker or anything like that, do you? There is some sort of supervision. Yes?

I certainly hope so. Because all joking aside, I'm genuinely concerned now.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by kmx1974

and that's not supported by your link.

That it's gaining mass isn't really supported by your link either. Mine showed parts of the Antarctic are gaining mass. It also showed the uncertainties involved, and the large differences in estimates from different data sources. It also showed the scarcity of data, ie the limited amount of satellite data available to prove or disprove claims of unprecedented warming. It also showed that the paper you cited may have exagerated the amount of loss.

But hey, this is climate science. We're being asked to support the biggest spending and wealth transference scam in human history on the basis of this data. Yeo, Gummer, Oxburgh, Gore etc all tell us we need to give them.. I mean do more to fight global warming by investing in industries they benefit from.

[kmx1974]

Originally Posted by Abewest

I stand corrected.

No, your confused, what you do is steadfastly refuse to stand corrected, that's why you've spent a day arguing over something as trivial as one of your many poor choices of phrasing.

Originally Posted by Abewest

One final attempt at this. It wasn't a bit out there because he'd checked his facts, it was a bit out there because he was seemingly intent on raising that issue again in an attempt to make a point. Which was why I was curious as to whether he remembered it verbatim or went to the trouble of digging up that old post from over a year ago - something that we'd sorted out way back - and was about to rehash it all over again.

Patent nonsense! Literally, it makes no sense, here is the full post and none of that is in there:

Originally Posted by Abewest

Sorry. My mistake. I've now fired off a letter to the dictionary publishers to demand that they amend this entry.

Hopefully it should now read as follows:

Haunt: To visit regularly. To frequent. To invoke highly irrational and pedantic responses from those who prefer "frequent" to "haunt".

PS: Just of curiosity - and you did say it was one of my first posts - did you actually remember this word for word, or did you go searching for it?

If it's the former... well, I just don't know what to say. And even if it's the latter, it's still a bit out there...

None of which speaks to a wide ranging history where this is all old ground being retrod for the nth time. Further, the actual part I'm taking issue with is tangential to your point; it's a post script, an afterthought, where, a propos of nothing, you express befuddlement at the idea of people remembering things or, where they don't, checking them.

[kmx1974]

• Straw Man #1
  

  Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

  That it's gaining mass isn't really supported by your link either.

  I never argued that it was, I disputed your assertion that the "Arctic's losing ice mass whilst Antarctica is gaining it".
  
  
• Straw Man #2
  

  Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

  Mine showed parts of the Antarctic are gaining mass.

  I never argued that "parts" of the Antarctic weren't gaining mass, I disputed your assertion that the "Arctic's losing ice mass whilst Antarctica is gaining it".
  
  
• Straw Man #3

  Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

  It also showed the uncertainties involved

  I never argued there weren't uncertainties, I disputed your assertion that the "Arctic's losing ice mass whilst Antarctica is gaining it".
  
  
• Straw Man # 4
  

  Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

  and the large differences in estimates from different data sources.

  I didn't argue for the uniformity of the different data sources, I disputed your assertion that the "Arctic's losing ice mass whilst Antarctica is gaining it".
  
  
• Straw Man #5
  

  Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

  It also showed the scarcity of data

  I didn't argue there was an abundance of data, I disputed your assertion that the "Arctic's losing ice mass whilst Antarctica is gaining it".
  
  
• Straw Man #6
  

  Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

  ie the limited amount of satellite data available to prove or disprove claims of unprecedented warming.

  I didn't argue there was unprecedented warming, I disputed your assertion that the "Arctic's losing ice mass whilst Antarctica is gaining it".
  
  
• Straw Man #7
  

  Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

  It also showed that the paper you cited may have exagerated the amount of loss.

  I didn't argue for the absolute veracity of the figures in the paper I cited, I disputed your assertion that the "Arctic's losing ice mass whilst Antarctica is gaining it".

So, do you have proof that the "Arctic's losing ice mass whilst Antarctica is gaining it" or are you just going to continue listing things I haven't been discussing?

[Abewest]

Originally Posted by kmx1974

Patent nonsense! Literally, it makes no sense, here is the full post and none of that is in there:None of which speaks to a wide ranging history where this is all old ground being retrod for the nth time.

Oh dear. I know this. There's a reason it's being retrod. *You're* that reason. Remember I told you that it there was a certain context to it. Remember I then explained that you were wrong to assume that the context was in the actual post, that there was a bit of history to this, but yet no matter how many times this was pointed out to you, you still failed to grasp it. Remember I then explained this repeatedly in an effort to help you. Remember I then even gave you the history of that exchange from over a year ago, and how andy had initially responded in a normal manner, and then decided the wording of the post was inappropriate after taking his lead from njp?

Remember all that? Good. Now listen (or read) very, very carefully the following paragraph.

That's why I found it a bit "out there"; that he would then go searching for that particular post and use that as his reference. That he would go back and dig it out after what we'd been through before with that post. Are you seriously telling me that you don't understand this? Seriously?

If so, I honestly don't know how much clearer I can make this for you when you just keep ignoring these salient points.

Further, the actual part I'm taking issue with is tangential to your point; it's a post script, an afterthought, where, a propos of nothing, you express befuddlement at the idea of people remembering things or, where they don't, checking them.

*Sigh*

Again, pay close attention to the following paragraph.

Not things. That particular thing in that particular instance. Again, I really don't how I can make this any clearer for you. It wasn't the *checking*, it was the fact that he went looking for it to rehash that exchange all over again. You of course have since turned all this to fit your thinking. When I expressed puzzlement that andy should do this, you read that as puzzlement on my part that anyone should go and research any old thing. And you're still doing it. I tried to explain to you that you were reading the situation wrong, but it makes no difference to you.

It's all actually very simple. But I think I'll just have to accept that it's a losing battle trying to get you to understand this. The words head, brick and wall spring to mind here.

Time Saver: Kmx returns with his favourite buzz word *nonsense* and again references the original post in an attempt to prove his point.

[kmx1974]

Originally Posted by Abewest

Time Saver: Kmx returns with his favourite buzz word *nonsense* and again references the original post in an attempt to prove his point.

Look, you're doing it again, another criticism of a person for checking with the source material. What is your problem with people carrying out research?

[Abewest]

Originally Posted by kmx1974

Look, you're doing it again, another criticism of a person for checking with the source material. What is your problem with people carrying out research?

Mmmm. Nah. You have to be on a wind-up. That I could understand. That I could even appreciate. But the rest of it - I just don't buy it. Not any more.

[kmx1974]

Originally Posted by Abewest

I just don't buy it.

It's more that you can't sell it, research being a bit out there does not follow from your tedious and meaningless explanations.

[allaorta]

Originally Posted by kmx1974

It's more that you can't sell it, research being a bit out there does not follow from your tedious and meaningless explanations.

Yes but getting back to the question, will the Arctic ice be gone by 2020, 2050 0r 2010 and what will have caused it?