2009 2nd warmest year on record

[SAT]

I see so you're not interested in even making an actual claim much less substantiating it.

Do you think this style of debate is even vaguely convincing to anyone? Do you suppose fellow skeptics do anything but cringe when you show up and bluster endlessly? You've now made 5 or 6 posts on the topic of Akrasia being wrong or a liar and you've yet to even say why.

Please do not assume others suffer from the same reading comprehension issues as yourself.

You just ageed Akrasia was wrong it's just a pity, and a sad indictment of the education system, it took you 5 or 6 posts to 'get' the obvious.

[SAT]

Woot!! That'll teach them pesky AGWers not to mess with Osmosisman! IN YOUR FACE! IN YOUR FACE!

(btw Osmosisman, did you stop reading at 'Ok'?)

Hi Gimp always good to see you increase the intellectual input of the AGW proponents' side of the debate.

[sharper]

Please do not assume others suffer from the same reading comprehension issues as yourself.

You just ageed Akrasia was wrong it's just a pity, and a sad indictment of the education system, it took you 5 or 6 posts to 'get' the obvious.

If you want to assert this is the case I'm happy for you to do so because it's nothing other than a fantastic example of why nobody should ever trust a claim made by you. Either you're unable to comprehend the written word to a fairly worrying degree or you're prepared to lie shamelessly about it. It's much more difficult to establish this conclusively when we're talking about complex external sources but for you to give everyone a taste of it in relation to a single sentence really makes things easy.

[SAT]

If you want to assert this is the case I'm happy for you to do so because it's nothing other than a fantastic example of why nobody should ever trust a claim made by you. Either you're unable to comprehend the written word to a fairly worrying degree or you're prepared to lie shamelessly about it. It's much more difficult to establish this conclusively when we're talking about complex external sources but for you to give everyone a taste of it in relation to a single sentence really makes things easy.

Oh dear. Let's check this again as perhaps you still haven't gotten it.

There is only one right answer to the following question so please try not to pontificate.

Is Akrasia's statement that 2009 was the 2nd hottest year since instrumental records began correct? Yes or no?

[myksav]

It can't be. We had a lousy summer in '09, dull, wet, cool. That graph has to be wrong.

[myksav]

I see so you're not interested in even making an actual claim much less substantiating it.

Do you think this style of debate is even vaguely convincing to anyone? Do you suppose fellow skeptics do anything but cringe when you show up and bluster endlessly? You've now made 5 or 6 posts on the topic of Akrasia being wrong or a liar and you've yet to even say why.

Sharper, did you really think that SAT would answer the actual question you posed?
He's just keeping to form.

[sharper]

Sharper, did you really think that SAT would answer the actual question you posed?

I often have too much faith in the rationality of others. I always think that if I just explain something a little bit better or work harder to understand where they're coming from it'll all make sense (if they're factually wrong). Some such as SAT merely use my patience to play games and dance around like a child but that's a reflection on them and the positions they support, not me.

[myksav]

I often have too much faith in the rationality of others. I always think that if I just explain something a little bit better or work harder to understand where they're coming from it'll all make sense (if they're factually wrong). Some such as SAT merely use my patience to play games and dance around like a child but that's a reflection on them and the positions they support, not me.

I can see that. It often pays off, one way or the other but there's a point at which it's better to just let them drift away on their own.

[Gnome Chomsky]

this will push demand for oil down and the same amount of oil will still be burned

I'm no expert, but I think that's impossible. Demand is another way of saying how much will be consummed. If demand drops, less will have to be consummed, by definition.

[sharper]

I'm no expert, but I think that's impossible.

No. Demand is not just wanting something, it's also being able and prepared to pay for it. There's a lot of demand for Ferraris and the kinds of houses you see "musicians" living in on MTV but obviously most people can't afford them.

If you have a type of energy that supplies the equivalent of a €150 barrel of oil then the price of oil can't easily go above that. The same amount of oil gets consumed only it's providing a smaller and smaller chunk of the world's energy needs as other economical forms of energy are developed.