You are claiming that is the only form an ad hominem takes. Is it possible you may be mistaken? Why don’t you ask yourself what the purpose of John’s negative comment was.
I did not ignore anything. I just asked you specific questions about your hypothesis. You have ignored my questions, why?
When were the first models available to test?
Better yet, ask John. No, it wasn’t an ad hominem argument. One clue: it wasn’t an argument at all. An argument requires both claim and support. In an ad hominem argument, the ad hominem is the support. But I was just informing you that I don’t believe you are capable of reading graphs.
Incidentally, Bill is displaying one of his common tactics in this thread. When presented with evidence, he asks for further support, and the process can continue forever without reaching a conclusion. Now matter how far you go, he won’t agree that the evidence is conclusive.
Read the language… it’s shows a surface warming trend… however the trend is lower than predictions. This is in line with the data given.
If AR5 was mistaken about such an important issue… They should include it in their errata.
Besides, has the artic data been updated on all points? If so, the prediction for the past 140 years will also change.
This tiny fraction is where the models have made predictions about the future as opposed reconciling past Data. So it’s important.
I am not writing the models off, but there are possibilities of error. And such possibilities tend to compound over time.
Hi John
Yes, I can read graphs. Graph reading and analysis is lot of activity I did for a living. Yes, I have mis read your papers a few times. I have admitted it yet you don’t seem to let it go.
Your comment was ad hominem as we are in a constant argument on these threads. If I was not in an argument with you I was in an argument with someone else who supports your position. You also accused me of dishonesty which I find way over the top.
You now doubled down on this comment. Maybe you should ask yourself why you need to do this vs just defending your position on its own merits.
Maybe you should ask yourself why you always dodge scientific evidence in a discussion by making the false accusation everyone is committing ad hom attacks on you.
Yep. It’s been his standard M.O. on numerous internet C/E discussion boards for years.
I have read the language. The IPCC said it was a hiatus. A key heading in AR5 was “Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years” (AR5 page 769). That’s where the word came from. It was all over the news at the time., with phrases like “Since 1998, there has been an unexplained “standstill” in the heating of the Earth’s atmosphere”, and “air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have more or less plateaued since the record hot year in 1998”.
What do you mean if they were mistaken? Of course they were mistaken. You can find it all through the published literature. I’ve already shown it to you more than once. What do you mean include it in their errata? They didn’t find out the mistake until four years later, and AR6 hasn’t been published yet.
This is completely untrue. Firstly, this is not the only period for which the models have made predictions. Models have been making predictions for over fifty years. Secondly, as I have told you repeatedly, the models did not show a hiatus. The hiatus was in the observational data, not the models. The models were correct. You have this completely backwards.
[quote=“Ashwin_s, post:205, topic:5704”]
I am not writing the models off…[/quote]
Sure you are. You are doing your utmost to try and deny that they’re accurate, so you can continue to deny AGW.
I have told you the definition of an ad hominem. You were completely wrong. You throw around logical terms when you don’t know what they mean.
No, because unlike you I have studied logical argumentation formally.
Fortunately I don’t need to, he has clarified that I am correct.
Those questions are not part of my hypothesis. You are simply avoiding the facts, because you’re an AGW denier, just as you are a science denier. And the reason for this is that you are a cdesignproponentist.
If you had read the overview of AGW science I posted previously, and linked you to previously, you would know this.
Form Wiki:
Ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem , is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather
So is your claim that I had not made an argument yet. Is a preemptive strike on someone who is asking questions not ad hominem. You claim you have studied logic fallacies. I hope you can give clear direction here.
So the quantity of carbon and quantity of warming are not part of the hypothesis?
Ok. I just saw the claim you made to Ashwin that there have been models for 50 years. At what point do you think those models became accurate enough to defend the predictions made about temperature increase?
If this is in the paper you cited just let me know and I will go find it.
Not only had you not made an argument, John was not attempting to dismiss any argument you had made.
There was no “pre-emptive strike”. You made a claim. John explained why he found that claim hard to believe. His reason was based on evidence (your established track record), not on some perceived character flaw you might have. So now you’ve looked up “ad hominem” and found to your chagrin that it doesn’t mean what you thought it meant.
No. I said there have been models for over fifty years.
That is not what I said. Your continual attempts to change the subject instead of deal with what I said, are not signs of good faith.
This is already explained in the post I made previously, to which I linked you. If you had read it, you would not be asking this question.
At this point it looks like you did not read the definition accurately.
Accusing me of not being able to read a chart is clearly an attribute. And since I did make an argument on this issue it appears you may be mistaken.
So you call me a YEC and a AWG denier just because I am asking questions. I am on board to support carbon reduction and always have been. What I don’t know is how urgent this situation is.
The good faith problem is on your side. I have been labeled as biased and this is only based on your ignorance. I am very skeptical of untested or marginally tested scientific claims and perhaps at times hyper skeptical but that’s about it.
I have not read what you posted and that is my bad but I will by tomorrow.
Of course I did. It doesn’t say what you thought.
No. He said he doubts you noticed something on your own, when in the past you’ve demonstrated an inability to comprehend graphs and figures. this is not talking about an “attribute”, it’s talking about your established pattern of behavior. And he did not dismiss any argument you made, on the basis of a perceived moral flaw or character fault.
Again you’re trying to change the subject. John did not dismiss an argument you made based on a perceived character flaw. He didn’t even mention any argument you made. I note that at least you’ve changed your understanding of “ad hominem” now, which is some improvement.
No. I call you a YEC because you make the same arguments as YECs. I call you an AGW denier because you refuse to accept the scientific consensus, repeatedly challenge it with bad faith arguments, ask questions and then ignore the answers, change the subject every time your previous statements have been proven false, attribute to people statements they’ve never made, and refuse to actually address the science.
In this case we’re talking about claims which have been tested robustly over decades. We have a consensus has been formed through repeated observation, hypotheses, experimentation, accurate predictions, and the repeated validation of hypotheses, and their persistent resistance to falsification. Your “skepticism” is not based on science.
One more thing experience teaches me about Bill is that he never learns anything permanently. He may accept a point, but by the next day that’s all been forgotten and he returns to square one. Frustrating.
They have an errata for AR5 in their website. They don’t have to wait for AR6 to publish their errata.
I think you have misunderstood the literature here. AR5 doesn’t talk about warming coming to a standstill. They use the word hiatus to describe a reduction in RF values as compared to earlier years. News articles frequently gets the science wrong. This is not surprising.
If the Artic data lifts the average temperature overall, then it will do the same for previous years also.
I have already shown you predictions made by models over the last 50 years Vs actual. They all have degrees of error. In fact, the older predictions have more error (upto 28% over estimation). Your refusal to acknowledge data/reports from respected sources like Carbon brief and IPCC is surprising.
Where do you see me denying AGW?. I just accept the fact that the models have a track record of being wrong to varying degrees (usually on the higher side) when it comes to predicting future temperatures.
This is just a fact backed up by all the numbers.
This is a great sales pitch. If I can only figure out what you are selling.
If you don’t accept the consensus you are a denier. Please get your act together 
Blockquote
You’re completely missing the point I made. The errata for AR5 was published in 2015, which is two years before the error was discovered. I already told you they didn’t find the error until four years after AR5 was published, so how was it remotely possible for them to publish it in their errata in 2015, two years before the error was discovered?
The word “hiatus” means “a pause”, not “a reduction”. And as I’ve told you before, it’s irrelevant because the “hiatus” wasn’t in the models, it was in the observational data. The models were correct.
So what? I have already shown you that these degrees of error are irrelevant to the case being made. I even quoted from the sources you cited, which said exactly this. The models have been remarkably accurate, sometimes to within half a degree. The overall pattern is utterly unmistakable. AGW is real, the earth is warming, the models have been validated repeatedly, and we know that the margins of error are irrelevant in these terms.
I haven’t refused to acknowledge any such data. On the contrary, I’ve quoted from both Carbon Brief and the IPCC. In particular I’ve quoted the parts which you keep avoiding.
In all of these posts. You keep casting doubt on the models, and refusing to accept what they are saying. If you weren’t an AGW denier, you wouldn’t have a need to do this. You would also accept AGW explicitly, acknowledge the accuracy of the models, and stop trying to discredit them.
No. You point to tiny margins of error and use them to cast doubt on what the models are saying. You keep on refusing to acknowledge their accuracy. You’re doing it again right here.
I thought this subject through after discussion with my Tesla-owning son-in-law (an excellent chap). How fortuitous, then, that 2 days after this post, this article appeared in the Brussels Times.
For any German speakers, this is the original reserach article.
Here’s the important part.
When CO2 emissions linked to the production of batteries and the German energy mix - in which coal still plays an important role - are taken into consideration, electric vehicles emit 11% to 28% more than their diesel counterparts, according to the study, presented on Wednesday at the Ifo Institute in Munich.
This problem vanishes when electricity is sourced from nuclear fuel. Unfortunately the fossil fuel lobby and a large part of the green lobby, have succeeded in convincing the public that nuclear is dangerous and impractical.
We should have taken up nuclear power fullscale, decades ago. If we had at least done it during the 80s, we wouldn’t be in our current mess. Now it remains the only rational option for the future. We don’t have a choice anymore. It’s nuclear, or burn.
You may be right - but when my brother was a member of Friends of the Earth, his tee-shirt read “Nuclear power? No Thanks.” And I don’t think the guys demonstrating in London are promoting more reactors, either.