�Global Temperature� � Why Should We Trust A Statistic That Might Not Even Exist?

[oxmixmudd]

How about instead of using ad hominem* you actually tell me why I am wrong?


*see? I do know what ad hominem means.

hmm - I'm still not sure you know what it means Sparko. And why would you say something like what drove my reply if you want me to take you seriously? That was my point. I was (and am) actually assuming, and said as much, that you are intelligent - and I was trying to get you to drop the sarcastic cover and talk about what the actual reality is, both in terms of the OP and global warming.

Over and over, with you and with others, I've tried many different ways of appealing to your intelligence and potential more noble nature. ALL of them have failed. Why is that? Why can't we just have a discussion? Why does it ALWAYS have to be punctuated with insults, derogatory comments and sarcasm? I am still committed to not STARTING a negative tangent in a conversation. As far as I know, my negative comments of late are defensive in nature, they come AFTER I've been attacked, not before.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

The actually funny part is that the "graph" has nothing to do with the need for less clothing due to the earth warming, but everything to do with modesty decreasing and the sexual revolution advancing. That was the joke.

[Cow Poke]

So now the 'warming' is 'warming up to more sex'? OK. So - we've established I'm not quite as savvy as the rest of you in figuring out jokes of a sexual nature.

Jim, it wasn't "of a sexual nature" -- it was, in a sense, mocking the "proof" of climate change by presenting a totally unrelated....

nevermind

Back to the "bitter attacks", eh?

[firstfloor]

More impotantly, it allows you to see long term trends over the 'noise' of daily, seasonal, yearly and decadal variations due to the dynamic nature of the system.

Jim

Yes, I think Teallaura is beginning to see through the fog.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, it wasn't "of a sexual nature" -- it was, in a sense, mocking the "proof" of climate change by presenting a totally unrelated....

nevermind



Back to the "bitter attacks", eh?

I love the way any attempt to DEFEND oneself against an attack becomes an ATTACK.

----

This began because I explained people accepting this story about trump as being because trump has said so many silly things people found the idea he said it credible.

You and Sparko both accused me of excusing the news for reporting an unsubstantiated claim by making my first comment.

I replied my comment was not an excuse for the media but an observation about trump, which sparko acknowledged as legit (with an amen) but you did not.

instead, you turned it into another opportunity to say another negative thing about me

MM entered calling my original comment that 'fake news'

I responded that the idea trump has said many silly things was fake new was itself fake news, and I tried to lighten it with a emoji

MM responded by dismissing my comment as TDS

Charles said MM was using ad hominem

Sparko said ad hominem was a non-sequitor

I said Sparko must have forgotten what both terms mean (because it was an indirect hit at my sanity and thus ad hominem does in fact follow)

Sparko got confused about the fact MM was in fact attacking me directly as he tried to defend his use of non-sequitor

I tried to make yet another point about TDS being derogatory and mindless, a 'game of calvin ball'

which OBP dismissed

To Which I doubled down in my opinion of what TDS is, but noting also that using that term is something each of you seems to enjoy doing

To which you again had to attack me personally about me whining

which I called ad hominem - which it was, and where I again reiterated that TDS is just a way to degrade those that are disagreed with about Trump.


------

Sigh, just another day on TWEB.

And that is what is truly sad.

Jim

[Cow Poke]

I love the way any attempt to DEFEND oneself against an attack becomes an ATTACK....

talk to the hand.jpg

[oxmixmudd]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]39407[/ATTACH]

Jim

[One Bad Pig]

I tried to make yet another point about TDS being derogatory and mindless, a 'game of calvin ball'

which OBP dismissed

Because it was wrong.

To Which I doubled down in my opinion of what TDS is, but noting also that using that term is something each of you seems to enjoy doing

I appreciate that you acknowledge that it is your opinion. I find it insulting to be told what I think without being asked first.

[Cow Poke]

I find it insulting to be told what I think without being asked first.

Keep that in mind as you look forward to being married.

[lilpixieofterror]

Keep that in mind as you look forward to being married.

[Mountain Man]

Keep that in mind as you look forward to being married.

As far as my late wife was concerned, there were two ways of doing things:

1) Her way.
2) The wrong way.

[Cow Poke]

At our house, I always get the last word.



yes dear

[Sparko]

No Sparko, seen the way most of you saw it at first, it's just funny regardless. I didn't see it having that meaning the first time I saw it. That is what changed.

But It's funny in the different context than what I originally observed because of how it indirectly indicates the warming through the move to the need for less and less clothing - underwear - on women, who are traditionally 'cold' at night, and towards forms more commonly seen in swimsuits on women in tropical climes. IOW, it has more raw humorous value seen that way, and likely I'd have seen it as funny even if rogue had used it to mock AGW, though I'd have still been annoyed at supporting pseudo-science with it.

Had I initially seen it as above, my comment would have been more " - yes that is funny, but why are you ..."


Jim

Even though I don't really think global warming is happening (as fast and as badly as the pundits are pushing it anyway) I still found it funny. Because I have a sense of humor and don't try to take a funny photo/meme seriously.

I also found it humorous that you got upset at rogue06 about it and said he was promoting pseudo-science. I found it ironic that you would be calling AGW pseudo-science.

[Sparko]

hmm - I'm still not sure you know what it means Sparko. And why would you say something like what drove my reply if you want me to take you seriously? That was my point. I was (and am) actually assuming, and said as much, that you are intelligent - and I was trying to get you to drop the sarcastic cover and talk about what the actual reality is, both in terms of the OP and global warming.

No, Jim, you were INSULTING my intelligence in a passive-aggressive way, while refusing to address what I actually said and responding to that. It was classic ad hominem.

Let's dissect it:

No - you couldn't. But that you think you could is informative. That lack of comprehension here is getting somewhat mind boggling.

1. refusing to deal with what I actually said. 2. Insinuating that I am stupid.

Why are you guys making yourselves stupid just to support the idea AGW is a farce?

3. Coming right out and calling me stupid.

I know you are not ignorant enough to think what you just said makes any sense at all - right Sparko? Come on, lets try to at least argue at the level of what we know.

Insinuating that I was either lying or actually am that ignorant. If I were to say "right I am not that ignorant" then I would have been lying to you. If I am being serious, which I was, then you are calling me ignorant, while pretending you think I am "smarter than that".

You go around insulting people all the time Jim. Then you get upset when they push back and complain they are bullying you!

I suppose you will do the same here. But what you did to me was indeed "ad hominem"

Now we can just ignore this little sidetrack and you could respond to my original post with a modicum of civility and if you think I am wrong, explain why, without calling me stupid.

Over and over, with you and with others, I've tried many different ways of appealing to your intelligence and potential more noble nature. ALL of them have failed. Why is that? Why can't we just have a discussion? Why does it ALWAYS have to be punctuated with insults, derogatory comments and sarcasm? I am still committed to not STARTING a negative tangent in a conversation. As far as I know, my negative comments of late are defensive in nature, they come AFTER I've been attacked, not before.


Jim

Here is the original link

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post664515
Well I have seen various highs and lows as far as Maximum temperatures on the moon, so I could calculate the average temperature of the moon from anywhere of -30F to +40F, just by picking and choosing which max/min temperatures to use, but that really doesn't tell you anything, as you would be hard pressed to actually find 10F on the moon anywhere. And the surface temperature varies on the lit side depending on the latitude also. Averages don't really help when you can just play with the data and get a wide range of "averages" - and if you can do it so easily on the moon, imagine the margin of error on the Earth, a planet with actual weather?

There is nothing insulting or demeaning, no derogatory comments or sarcasm in my post. I WAS trying to have a normal discussion.

[Sparko]

I love the way any attempt to DEFEND oneself against an attack becomes an ATTACK.

----

This began because I explained people accepting this story about trump as being because trump has said so many silly things people found the idea he said it credible.

You and Sparko both accused me of excusing the news for reporting an unsubstantiated claim by making my first comment.

I replied my comment was not an excuse for the media but an observation about trump, which sparko acknowledged as legit (with an amen) but you did not.

instead, you turned it into another opportunity to say another negative thing about me

MM entered calling my original comment that 'fake news'

I responded that the idea trump has said many silly things was fake new was itself fake news, and I tried to lighten it with a emoji

MM responded by dismissing my comment as TDS

Charles said MM was using ad hominem

Sparko said ad hominem was a non-sequitor

I said Sparko must have forgotten what both terms mean (because it was an indirect hit at my sanity and thus ad hominem does in fact follow)

Sparko got confused about the fact MM was in fact attacking me directly as he tried to defend his use of non-sequitor

I tried to make yet another point about TDS being derogatory and mindless, a 'game of calvin ball'

which OBP dismissed

To Which I doubled down in my opinion of what TDS is, but noting also that using that term is something each of you seems to enjoy doing

To which you again had to attack me personally about me whining

which I called ad hominem - which it was, and where I again reiterated that TDS is just a way to degrade those that are disagreed with about Trump.


------

Sigh, just another day on TWEB.

And that is what is truly sad.

Jim

You are confusing at least two different threads. The one where MM and charles were discussing ad hominems was a different thread (Trump Hurricane thread) and I only referenced it in a link where you used ad hom on me in this thread.