or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Short-term Weather Patterns: They Mean Nothing.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Short-term Weather Patterns: They Mean Nothing. - Page 3

post #81 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Simple, deniers often take scientific papers out of context or misconstrue the facts presented therein. [

Stop, because that really says it all: Those who don't embrace the theory of AGW are either corrupt, or stupid.

Quote:

To start, reduce emission, stop deforestation look at cleaner technologies, better than what you propose....do nothing.

I do not propose "doing nothing." That has never been my position.


Quote:
We are making a start in looking at alternative sources of energy, but the deniers keep the public and our government think that AGW is a myth....Don't look for anything happening in the next session of congress.

Right, it's all the "deniers." The irony is unreal. You are in...cough...DENIAL about the fact that many left wing/liberal people are stopping some of the best solutions, such as nuclear power. Nuclear power was assaulted by the left during the 1980s and 1990s. We've not built new plants in 30 years.

As for AGW being a myth: With the evidence I'm aware of, I don't believe it is a sound theory. But let's assume that I'm wrong (that should make you happy!). After all, I'm not a climatologist. So..what should we do? Let me tell you what absolutely will not work: Cap and Trade schemes. That cat is out of the bag. Even the American Global Warming Club of America(TM)--of which you are obviously a member--knows that even slashing carbon emissions by a huge amount would not make a difference. Cap and Trade is just another control and tax scheme. Nothing more.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...postcount=2583

Supported by Tea Party polluters, incoming GOP energy chair Upton flips on threat of global warming[/quote]

Right, it's the Tea Party's fault. Man, this is getting good.

[quote]

More $$$ comes from oil companies funding the deniers than what funds climate research.

ExxonMobil Funds Global Warming Deniers

Funny, but I don't see anyone from ExxonMobile signing my checks.

Quote:


FYI bovine fecal matter is a major contributor to another greenhouse gas....methane.

Yes, I'm aware of that claim. So let me get this straight: To combat global warming, we must slash our use of fossil fuels. We must essentially become a more agrarian society. But we can't raise livestock, because their farts and poop contribute to global warming. Riiight. And you don't see how some might think that this is nothing more than the extreme left pushing it's agenda? Now we can get the vegetarians and vegans involved too!

By the way, what does "major contributor" mean?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #82 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Stop, because that really says it all: Those who don't embrace the theory of AGW are either corrupt, or stupid.

Not at all...that's not fair....they could be greedy as well or just brainwashed into repeating the Conservative party line without any thought.

What is beyond doubt though is that there are no circumstances whatsoever where they would accept GW. None.

They might argue against certain facts - easily done as they are incapable of understanding them - but there is NOTHING that would convince them.

You might think that we will all be sitting around in a desert wasteland one day and you will have the chance to hear one of these tossers admit the were wrong.

DON'T BE STUPID.

You will be sitting in your arid armageddon, struggling for water under the unforgiving sun and you will hear the SAME FATUOUS AND TIRED REFRAINS as the human experiment finally peters out pathetically at the hands of a bunch of moronic cro-magnon fuckhead throwbacks.........
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #83 of 128
...or alternatively (and this is the scenario I prefer and fervently believe) we have at most 20 years of such lobotomized non-thinking as mother nature saves herself by wiping the failed evolutionary retards off the map.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #84 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Stop, because that really says it all

Thanks for responding to my post of 01/02/2011.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #85 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Not at all...that's not fair....they could be greedy as well or just brainwashed into repeating the Conservative party line without any thought.

I've noticed something among the Left that should be pointed out: They cannot accept that there are reasonable, intelligent and uncorrupted people out there with whom they just honestly disagree. You've just demonstrated this perfectly.

Quote:

What is beyond doubt though is that there are no circumstances whatsoever where they would accept GW. None.

They might argue against certain facts - easily done as they are incapable of understanding them - but there is NOTHING that would convince them.

Uh, who is brainwashed here? There are many people that would accept it if, you know, it was actually happening. There would be many people that would accept it if, you know, it wasn't being jammed down their throats by people who clearly have a political agenda. They might accept it if some of the evidence presented by the keepers of the climate change Holy Grail--the UN IPCC--wasn't shown to be highly flawed at best and made-up at worst.

Perhaps if people presented actual unbiased evidence of C02 being linked to warming, then produced evidence of that warming? That is all that would be needed. Instead, we get propaganda, junk science and even falsified data...all to be fixed by a massive, freedom-destroying taxation scheme.

Quote:

You might think that we will all be sitting around in a desert wasteland one day and you will have the chance to hear one of these tossers admit the were wrong.

DON'T BE STUPID.

You will be sitting in your arid armageddon, struggling for water under the unforgiving sun and you will hear the SAME FATUOUS AND TIRED REFRAINS as the human experiment finally peters out pathetically at the hands of a bunch of moronic cro-magnon fuckhead throwbacks.........

Wow, at least you come out and say it: Don't be stupid. At least you've got the guts to admit that anyone with whom you disagree must be stupid. You're attack on these unnamed, "brainwashed" and/or corrupt and/or stupid conservatives is the silliest kind of hyperbole.

The fact of the matter is that it is you, sir, who refuse to engage in discussion. It is your side that constantly clamors "the debate is over." The debate is not over. Many of the core precepts of AGW have not been proven. C02 has not been linked to warming. The temperature is WELL within historical norms, even far below them. The sea is not rising abnormally. Hurricanes and other weather events are not increasing. People don't believe it because they have not seen sufficient evidence. The case has not been proven. Not at all.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #86 of 128
It was really cold last week. It was like -2F one day like I mentioned. I guess that means global warming is over.
post #87 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Wow, at least you come out and say it: Don't be stupid. At least you've got the guts to admit that anyone with whom you disagree must be stupid. You're attack on these unnamed, "brainwashed" and/or corrupt and/or stupid conservatives is the silliest kind of hyperbole.

Err..I was talking to any sane rational people and lefties who might be tempted to think deniers might be rational.

"Don't be Stupid' enough to think that deniers WILL EVER admit they are wrong even when they've fucked up the complete planet irrevocably.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #88 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

It was really cold last week. It was like -2F one day like I mentioned. I guess that means global warming is over.

Yeah maybe you're right, but explain this:

Cold comfort: Canada's record-smashing mildness
Quote:
Some fascinating weather has unfolded across the Northern Hemisphere over the last month, but you may have only heard about part of it. The media dutifully reported on the heavy snow that battered the mid-Atlantic and New England states in late December. It was also the United Kingdoms coldest December in at least the last century. Meanwhile, the sparsely populated Canadian Arctic basked in near-unprecedented mildness.

Its the second chapter of a tale that began a year ago, when Canada as a whole saw the warmest and driest winter in its history. Much of the blame went to El Niño, which typically produces warmer-than-average weather across Canada. So far, so goodbut similar things are happening this winter, even with a La Niña now at the helm.


Surface temperature anomalies for the period 17 December 2010 to 15 January 2011 show impressive warmth across the Canadian Arctic. (Image courtesy NOAA/ESRL/PSD Map Room.)

I guess you missed this too
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #89 of 128
We didn't get a lot of snow though. Only like 6 inches.
post #90 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Err..I was talking to any sane rational people and lefties who might be tempted to think deniers might be rational.

"Don't be Stupid' enough to think that deniers WILL EVER admit they are wrong even when they've fucked up the complete planet irrevocably.


So there it is. Anyone who disagrees with the notion of AGW (the "deniers" as you put it) will never admit that it's happening. Are you reading your own posts? Do you hear yourself?

Look, I understand there may be people out there who fit the bill you're describing. Perhaps oil companies really are interested in nothing but profit, and do not care if they screw the planet. They may never admit they are wrong. But, the vast majority of skeptics simply don't believe sufficient evidence exists proving this theory.

In the same vein, we skeptics see the other side jumping around, screaming "shut the fuck up, the debate is over you stupid ignorant assholes!" We see junk science morons like Al Gore pushing highly flawed propaganda films down our throats. We see falsified and flawed evidence. We hear people crying wolf, saying that we have 5 or 10 years or even 6 months to prevent global catastrophe. We see politicians crafting schemes to redistribute wealth and limit freedom, all in the name of this supposed catastrophe. And we see scientific dissent pushed down into the gutter, in opposition to everything science stands for.

How is that you consistently question the motives of "the deniers," yet you do not question the people that are demonstrably lying, cheating and enriching themselves? Why are smart people like yourselves abandoning the scientific method, and instead pushing an unproven theory as a pseudo-religion?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #91 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So there it is. Anyone who disagrees with the notion of AGW (the "deniers" as you put it) will never admit that it's happening. Are you reading your own posts? Do you hear yourself?

Absolutely.

I am only saying what most objective people know: that your objections to this issue are in no way based on facts, research, understanding of science or anything remotely similar.

They are in fact, merely tribal loyalty.

Quote:
In the same vein, we skeptics see the other side jumping around, screaming "shut the fuck up, the debate is over you stupid ignorant assholes!" We see junk science morons like Al Gore pushing highly flawed propaganda films down our throats. We see falsified and flawed evidence. We hear people crying wolf, saying that we have 5 or 10 years or even 6 months to prevent global catastrophe. We see politicians crafting schemes to redistribute wealth and limit freedom, all in the name of this supposed catastrophe. And we see scientific dissent pushed down into the gutter, in opposition to everything science stands for.

That's a different story...these assholes do this with everything. For example see terror threats: there is one of sorts - but they expand it, distort it and profit from it.

I lump them in with the pure deniers...in fact they are worse and complete assholes. But that is not the issue we are discussing.

It's not an argument that 'it can't be true because some of the supporters are not really supporters and are assholes'.

Gore et all probably believe in it less than you do.

[quote]
How is that you consistently question the motives of "the deniers," yet you do not question the people that are demonstrably lying, cheating and enriching themselves?[quote]

I question the deniers because they are just that - deniers. Not objective people who can be partners in a search for truth.

I do not question Gore et al because they are something different. If you want We can discuss them - and I've given you a sampler of my feelings towards these wankers above - but the fact is they may be profiting but they are not preventing.

When we have stopped the preventers then we can deal with these. It's a question of priorities.

Quote:
Why are smart people like yourselves abandoning the scientific method, and instead pushing an unproven theory as a pseudo-religion?

I think that's the whole argument: science vs fanatical belief. As you say, both sides claim it but both cannot be right.

So Gore sees a chance to profit. Big deal. I thought Conservatives like profit anyway. I don't see him denying science though.
I do see that from your side - it's a motley crew SDW and none of them have much idea of what they're talking about.

In short, you cannot trust them.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #92 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Absolutely.

I am only saying what most objective people know: that your objections to this issue are in no way based on facts, research, understanding of science or anything remotely similar.

They are in fact, merely tribal loyalty.

That is absolutely fucking ridiculous. It's also one of the most incredibly myopic statements I've heard. You've played this game before, claiming that your positions on any given issue are based on facts, science and research, while my and other opponents' opinions are ignorant, misinformed or based on the aforementioned "tribal loyalty." I'm not sure exactly, but I suspect you have some kind of personality disorder...perhaps narcissism.

Quote:

That's a different story...these assholes do this with everything. For example see terror threats: there is one of sorts - but they expand it, distort it and profit from it.

I lump them in with the pure deniers...in fact they are worse and complete assholes. But that is not the issue we are discussing.

It's not an argument that 'it can't be true because some of the supporters are not really supporters and are assholes'.

Gore et all probably believe in it less than you do.

Does the existence of said Assholes (and their actions) completely disprove the theory of AGW? No. I have not said that. But it does create doubt. It creates questions, many of which I've asked already. Looking at these actions, the logical conclusion is that said Assholes have an Asshole Agenda. Surely you must see that many people, groups, corporations and governments stand to gain (and lose) from the implementation of AGW mitigation measures. It's started already, from cap and trade schemes to carbon credits one can buy. For all your lecturing on "facts, evidence and research," you seem unwilling to engage in the most basic scientific activity: Questioning.

[quote]
How is that you consistently question the motives of "the deniers," yet you do not question the people that are demonstrably lying, cheating and enriching themselves?
Quote:

I question the deniers because they are just that - deniers. Not objective people who can be partners in a search for truth.

But on what do you base that? Just as you argue that the existence of the Assholes doesn't disprove the theory of AGW, I argue that the existence of truly committed and/or corrupt and/or stupid "deniers" doesn't mean that all skeptics--or even most--fit that bill. You can't have it both ways, sego. If you believe one, you must believe the other, lest you expose yourself to be intellectually dishonest, which I don't think you are.

Quote:

I do not question Gore et al because they are something different. If you want We can discuss them - and I've given you a sampler of my feelings towards these wankers above - but the fact is they may be profiting but they are not preventing.

I understand, but you cannot just dismiss these people as "fake" so to speak, but then embrace those on the other side as being truly representative of skeptical opinion. Here again, this is an intellectual honesty issue.

Quote:

When we have stopped the preventers then we can deal with these. It's a question of priorities.



I think that's the whole argument: science vs fanatical belief. As you say, both sides claim it but both cannot be right.

So Gore sees a chance to profit. Big deal. I thought Conservatives like profit anyway. I don't see him denying science though.
I do see that from your side - it's a motley crew SDW and none of them have much idea of what they're talking about.

In short, you cannot trust them.

But "they" are not just profiteers. "They" are involved in some institutions that are supposedly beyond reproach. I've given examples before. "They" suppress skeptical climate scientists. Aided by the predominantly liberal media, "they" have pushed the mantra that there is a broad consensus and little to no doubt about the theory. But this is simply not the case. There is debate. Or, there should be.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #93 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That is absolutely fucking ridiculous. It's also one of the most incredibly myopic statements I've heard. You've played this game before, claiming that your positions on any given issue are based on facts, science and research, while my and other opponents' opinions are ignorant, misinformed or based on the aforementioned "tribal loyalty." I'm not sure exactly, but I suspect you have some kind of personality disorder...perhaps narcissism.

Actually my positions are not valid - I am not a scientist. Nor are you.

The difference is that I am saying I respect and acknowledge the science and you are saying you somehow know better.

I'm calling you on that so if that means I have a personality disorder then why not? I'll buy it... whatever you call it, I'm on the other end of the spectrum from those who know nothing of science - like me - but claim they know better - unlike me.

Quote:
you seem unwilling to engage in the most basic scientific activity: Questioning.

Yep.....some things...you're right.

I refuse to question whether the earth is round, whether evolution is correct or whether the Biblical 7 day account is false.

On the other hand I DO question the non-scientific aspects of things and the insane beliefs (some of them) so it revolves just the same. All comes down to which side you're on I guess.

Quote:
How is that you consistently question the motives of "the deniers," yet you do not question the people that are demonstrably lying, cheating and enriching themselves?

But on what do you base that? Just as you argue that the existence of the Assholes doesn't disprove the theory of AGW, I argue that the existence of truly committed and/or corrupt and/or stupid "deniers" doesn't mean that all skeptics--or even most--fit that bill. You can't have it both ways, sego. If you believe one, you must believe the other, lest you expose yourself to be intellectually dishonest, which I don't think you are.

Most 'skeptics' as you refer to them are not Skeptics though SDW....they are merely Conservatives. True Skeptics are atheists more often than not and debunk religion and frauds etc. I don't think they spend much time trying to debunk established science in the area of climate change.

Quote:
I understand, but you cannot just dismiss these people as "fake" so to speak, but then embrace those on the other side as being truly representative of skeptical opinion. Here again, this is an intellectual honesty issue.

I'm not embracing any one PERSON or GROUP. I am merely acknowledging the science.

Quote:
But "they" are not just profiteers. "They" are involved in some institutions that are supposedly beyond reproach. I've given examples before. "They" suppress skeptical climate scientists. Aided by the predominantly liberal media, "they" have pushed the mantra that there is a broad consensus and little to no doubt about the theory. But this is simply not the case. There is debate. Or, there should be.

Some 'skeptical' climate scientists SHOULD be suppressed in the arena of science and only there.

Creationists should not similarly allowed in the realm of SCIENCE - in religion, fair enough. Believe what you like.

But don't take damaging and potentially disastrous beliefs into science....there are serious people there working to fix things and to try to stop them through ignorance or worse cannot be allowed to happen.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #94 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Actually my positions are not valid - I am not a scientist. Nor are you.

The difference is that I am saying I respect and acknowledge the science and you are saying you somehow know better.

I'm calling you on that so if that means I have a personality disorder then why not? I'll buy it... whatever you call it, I'm on the other end of the spectrum from those who know nothing of science - like me - but claim they know better - unlike me.

I do respect the science. But, the science is not conclusive. That is the point. Now, we can can disagree on this issue. You may feel it is conclusive, but hat doesn't mean you are right, nor does it mean those with whom you disagree are stupid. As for me, what possible motivation would I have to deny overwhelming evidence and current events proving the theory of global warming? Of course, that does nothing to address your (potential) belief that I am stupid, but I would hope that in our discussions I have shown that I am not.

The point is that current data does not support the theory. C02 has not been conclusively linked to warming. And, global temperature has increased negligibly over the past 100 years. Lack of current evidence and lack of theoretical evidence does not satisfy me. To do that, I need: 1) Conclusive evidence that shows C02 causes warming. 2) Man-made carbon emissions contribute in a statistically significant way to that warming through C02 levels and 3) Actual temperature increases over recent history. Is that really an unreasonable standard?

Quote:

Yep.....some things...you're right.

I refuse to question whether the earth is round, whether evolution is correct or whether the Biblical 7 day account is false.

I agree that anyone who questions those things is looney. That said, there is some nuance in those statements. Evolution may be "correct," but I also consider it possible that a superior being directed the process (intelligent design). It's not provable, but it's possible. Secondly, many Christians believe that the creation story is metaphorical. I, for one, believe that the Bible is the word of God as edited by man. Therefore, it cannot all be taken at face value. This is another discussion to be sure.

Quote:

On the other hand I DO question the non-scientific aspects of things and the insane beliefs (some of them) so it revolves just the same. All comes down to which side you're on I guess.

But you're not. You refuse to question the virtual raping of the scientific method and pursuit of truth that many who are in the Global Warming Club engage in. You stand by, watching them pound away. Then you slap the Republican next to you because he looked at your girlfriend.

Quote:

Most 'skeptics' as you refer to them are not Skeptics though SDW....they are merely Conservatives. True Skeptics are atheists more often than not and debunk religion and frauds etc. I don't think they spend much time trying to debunk established science in the area of climate change.

Oh, come on. Can you provide support for that? Are you honestly saying that true skeptics can only be godless socialist-progressives? There you go again. It's not enough to strongly disagree with your opponent. He must be exposed as lying, stupid, steaming pile of shit.

Quote:

I'm not embracing any one PERSON or GROUP. I am merely acknowledging the science.

Bullshit. Utter bullshit. You've gone much further than that. I acknowledge the existing science as well. But I also question what I've outlined earlier in the thread: Who are the people presenting and manipulating the data? What is their agenda? What are the sources? Why are dissenting scientific opinions discouraged and even covered up? How can we trust the IPCC report when there are glaring errors and even outright fraud in it? Who stands to benefit and/or lose from GW mitigation efforts? Do they have ties to the people reporting the data out? Why are supposedly neutral, dispassionate officials running around screaming "the debate is over!" Why are these people mounting a full-on publicity effort to "debunk" the skeptics if the evidence is overwhelming? Why the rebranding of AGW into "climate change?" Why didn't predictions of increased hurricanes and weather events bear out? Why didn't predictions of "lack of winter" bear out? I could go on.

Many of the answers to the above are not encouraging, and some are simply not known. But you won't even ask the questions or at least don't care about answers. And I'm the denier?

Quote:

Some 'skeptical' climate scientists SHOULD be suppressed in the arena of science and only there.

You'll find people that like that in any field.

Quote:

Creationists should not similarly allowed in the realm of SCIENCE - in religion, fair enough. Believe what you like.

I don't know exactly what that means. Not allowed? I think you'll probably find there aren't too many Creationists working in scientific areas anyway.

Quote:

But don't take damaging and potentially disastrous beliefs into science....there are serious people there working to fix things and to try to stop them through ignorance or worse cannot be allowed to happen.

Don't you see? That's exactly what's happening! It's been proven. Data has been manipulated to fit pre-concieved notions of warming. The IPCC report and East Anglia fiasco are prime examples.

Look: I am not saying AGW definitely doesn't exist. I'm saying I'm not convinced by the data I've seen. And while I'm not a scientist, I've seen a lot of that data. I also know the measurement that matters--global temperature--is not increasing at an alarming, abnormal or even statistically significant rate.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #95 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So there it is. Anyone who disagrees with the notion of AGW (the "deniers" as you put it) will never admit that it's happening. Are you reading your own posts? Do you hear yourself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Absolutely.
I am only saying what most objective people know: that your objections to this issue are in no way based on facts, research, understanding of science or anything remotely similar.

This even after increasing amount of evidence that conflicts with their notion that there is no GW. Several posters point out the fact of the cold winters in NA and N Eu, without think why this is happening or what is happening elsewhere.

The 3.5°F warming of Fram Strait water over the past century is "not just the latest in a series of natural multidecadal oscillations."
Quote:
Study after study finds recent warming is unprecedented in magnitude and speed and cause. The anti-science crowd keeps trying to debunk one or two old Hockey Sticks, but new ones crop up faster than a speeding puck......

This astonishing warming in the past century is clearly not, as the anti-science crowd likes to say, some sort of recovery from the so-called Little Ice Age (see A detailed look at the Little Ice Age), which, in any case, is barely noticeable in this data. The lead author, Robert Spielhagen of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences said, Such a warming of the Atlantic water in the Fram Strait is significantly different from all climate variations in the last 2,000 years. The fact is, over 90% of human-caused warming is going into the oceans and it is melting ice whereever it goes (see Deep ocean heat is rapidly melting Antarctic ice).

Temperature reconstructions of upper Atlantic Water in the eastern Fram Strait over the past ~2100 years

Thin lines are raw data, bold lines are three-point running means. (C) Summer temperatures at 50-m water depth (red). Gray bars mark averages until 1835 CE and 1890 to 2007 CE. Blue line is the normalized Atlantic Water core temperature (AWCT) record from the Arctic Ocean (1895 to 2002; 6-year averages). (D) Summer temperatures (purple) [calculated with a different method]


Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water
Quote:
The Arctic is responding more rapidly to global warming than most other areas on our planet. Northward-flowing Atlantic Water is the major means of heat advection toward the Arctic and strongly affects the sea ice distribution. Records of its natural variability are critical for the understanding of feedback mechanisms and the future of the Arctic climate system, but continuous historical records reach back only ~150 years. Here, we present a multidecadal-scale record of ocean temperature variations during the past 2000 years, derived from marine sediments off Western Svalbard (79°N). We find that early21st-century temperatures of Atlantic Water entering the Arctic Ocean are unprecedented over the past 2000 years and are presumably linked to the Arctic amplification of global warming.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #96 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

This even after increasing amount of evidence that conflicts with their notion that there is no GW. Several posters point out the fact of the cold winters in NA and N Eu, without think why this is happening or what is happening elsewhere.

The 3.5°F warming of Fram Strait water over the past century is "not just the latest in a series of natural multidecadal oscillations."


Temperature reconstructions of upper Atlantic Water in the eastern Fram Strait over the past ~2100 years

Thin lines are raw data, bold lines are three-point running means. (C) Summer temperatures at 50-m water depth (red). Gray bars mark averages until 1835 CE and 1890 to 2007 CE. Blue line is the normalized Atlantic Water core temperature (AWCT) record from the Arctic Ocean (1895 to 2002; 6-year averages). (D) Summer temperatures (purple) [calculated with a different method]




Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water

I understand there is data like that out there. Such data adds some credence to the theory. But it does not provide answers to the essential questions I asked re: global temperature not increasing significantly and C02 not being proven to cause warming.

Again, I'm not saying AGW is not happening or real. I'm not saying there is no evidence. I'm saying there is nowhere near enough evidence. We have related evidence. We have theories and predictions. But the central component of C02 causing warming has not been proven, nor has temperature increased despite us pumping trillions of tons of greenhouse gases into the air for the past 100 years.

I'm also not saying we sit back and do nothing about pollution. I believe we must eventually reduce our reliance of fossil fuels significantly if not completely. But this requires short and mid-term plans as well.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #97 of 128
Public belief in climate change weathers storm, poll shows
Quote:
Events of past 18 months have little effect on Britons' opinion, as 83% view climate change as a current or imminent threat...

A large majority of people think that humanity is causing climate change, with 68% agreeing and 24% choosing to blame non-man-made factors, which again is very close to the August 2009 response, with figures of 71% and 23% respectively. In 2007, the UN's science panel collated the work of thousands of scientists to conclude that the link between the emission of greenhouse gases by human activities and climate change was 90% certain.

While climate sceptics remain a vocal presence in some parts of the climate change debate, the new poll shows them to represent a fringe position. An analysis of those who think climate change poses no threat reveals them to be predominantly men (70%) and about twice as likely to be over 65 and to have voted Conservative in 2010 than the general population.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #98 of 128
Of course public opinion polls are meaningless to the science. The number of people on the planet that are skilled enough to know if this is real is very small and then the number that know the data is even smaller. All it tells you is that the marketing worked (or not).
post #99 of 128
So, you agree that there are only a number of people skilled enough to know if it's real. You also know that the overwhelming majority of that subset of scientists tell us global climate change is real. WHY DO YOU STILL DENY?


Follow your arguments to their logical conclusions for fuck's sake. Jumping Jesus Christ on a Pogo Stick!

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #100 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

So, you agree that there are only a number of people skilled enough to know if it's real. You also know that the overwhelming majority of that subset of scientists tell us global climate change is real. WHY DO YOU STILL DENY?


Follow your arguments to their logical conclusions for fuck's sake. Jumping Jesus Christ on a Pogo Stick!

Please tell me where I've ever denied global warming? I certainly mock the silliness of the chief protagonists. I love to ague data. People pay me to do that. I'm sure you can't find a single thread where I deny global warming is real.
post #101 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Of course public opinion polls are meaningless to the science. The number of people on the planet that are skilled enough to know if this is real is very small and then the number that know the data is even smaller. All it tells you is that the marketing worked (or not).

Or maybe the people believe in what the science has shown what's happening, despite the deniers' attempts to discredit the science.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #102 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Or maybe the people believe in what the science has shown what's happening, despite the deniers' attempts to discredit the science.

"believe" is the right word. Most people cannot know that it's true. The vast majority of public doesn't even understand hypothesis driven research. How can they know that global warming is true unless the believe what other people tell them.
post #103 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

"believe" is the right word. Most people cannot know that it's true. The vast majority of public doesn't even understand hypothesis driven research. How can they know that global warming is true unless the believe what other people tell them.

Everyone should know that Global Warming is true. There is no doubt. None whatsoever. Zero. Zilch. Nada... NO DEBATE.

What IS debated is man-made climate change.

But you know what?

It doesn't matter a fuck whether it's man made or not......it's HAPPENING and there is NO POINT in debating whether OR NOT humans are responsible.

What DOES matter is the fact that man-made toxicity spewing into the atmosphere under conditions of Climate Change CANNOT HELP BUT WILL MAKE THINGS WORSE AND HINDER ANY ATTEMPTS TO REVERSE THINGS.

WHAT THE FUCK ABOUT THAT IS SO DIFFICULT TO GRASP??????
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #104 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

"believe" is the right word. Most people cannot know that it's true. The vast majority of public doesn't even understand hypothesis driven research. How can they know that global warming is true unless the believe what other people tell them.

Same applies to religion or politics?
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #105 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Same applies to religion or politics?

Definitely in some cases....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #106 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Everyone should know that Global Warming is true. There is no doubt. None whatsoever. Zero. Zilch. Nada... NO DEBATE.

What IS debated is man-made climate change.

But you know what?

It doesn't matter a fuck whether it's man made or not......it's HAPPENING and there is NO POINT in debating whether OR NOT humans are responsible.

What DOES matter is the fact that man-made toxicity spewing into the atmosphere under conditions of Climate Change CANNOT HELP BUT WILL MAKE THINGS WORSE AND HINDER ANY ATTEMPTS TO REVERSE THINGS.

WHAT THE FUCK ABOUT THAT IS SO DIFFICULT TO GRASP??????

QED
post #107 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

WHAT THE FUCK ABOUT THAT IS SO DIFFICULT TO GRASP??????

Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

QED

I wasn't referring to you - we know why it's difficult for you to grasp.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #108 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Everyone should know that Global Warming is true. There is no doubt. None whatsoever. Zero. Zilch. Nada... NO DEBATE.

What IS debated is man-made climate change.

Actually the debate that should occur even before that is whether or not the net effects of so-called Global Warming (remember it's now called Climate Change because the globe, apparently, isn't warming anymore at this point) are negative or positive.

The logical progression of questions ought to go something like this:

1. Is the earth warming? Yes? No?
2. If yes, then is it warming to a degree or at a rate that threatens humankind? Yes? No?
3. If yes, is there anything we can do about it? Yes? No?

Question 3 might, of course, be dependent on whether we're actually causing it or not. But that's really a secondary concern.

So where are we with these questions?

1. The assumption is yes. OK. Let's just take that at face value. The earth probably has been warming. Probably also been cooling too. But this is not our concern. The really important questions are the next ones.
2. The assumption here is yes. This is the far more important question to be debated.
3. The assumption here is yes. This is based on the assumption that the warming is a result of human action.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #109 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So where are we with these questions?

1. The assumption is yes. OK. Let's just take that at face value. The earth probably has been warming. Probably also been cooling too. But this is not our concern. The really important questions are the next ones.
2. The assumption here is yes. This is the far more important question to be debated.
3. The assumption here is yes. This is based on the assumption that the warming is a result of human action.

Q2 merely shifts the ground for the deniers to start denying at a later point. This is not surprising - as I have said many times: they will deny right down the line and at any point....even sitting in a world in the grip of an ice age and with their last breath. They are deniers (of rationality) and supporters (of their leaders who they are brainwashed to support unquestioningly).

Q3 is not really a question at all. For example if the answer were 'no there is nothing we can do about it and we're all going to die' the deniers would never accept that answer. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

They won't accept THERE IS something we can do and they won't accept THERE IS NOT something we can do.

Their function is to deny.There's no logic involved...no rationality....no 'desire for truth'.

They are just cheering for their team and programmed to destroy anything whatsoever that interferes with that. It's really that simple.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #110 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Q2 merely shifts the ground for the deniers to start denying at a later point.

Wrong. This is a perfectly valid question. If you wish to deny it, then I guess this makes you a "denialist" of a different sort.


Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Q3 is not really a question at all.

Of course it is and a perfectly valid one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

They won't accept THERE IS something we can do and they won't accept THERE IS NOT something we can do.

This is a separate issue. If there is something that could be done to change things there will certainly be people who reject this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Their function is to deny.There's no logic involved...no rationality....no 'desire for truth'.

They are just cheering for their team and programmed to destroy anything whatsoever that interferes with that. It's really that simple.

Whatever.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #111 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Wrong. This is a perfectly valid question. If you wish to deny it, then I guess this makes you a "denialist" of a different sort.

Absolutely. I am a denier of irrationality, unreason and stupidity. I won't admit those things are worthy of sharing a level playing field with reason.

Speaking of which, I guess this is where our roads diverge and dialogue ends....[/QUOTE]
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #112 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Absolutely. I am a denier of irrationality, unreason and stupidity. I won't admit those things are worthy of sharing a level playing field with reason.

And you seem to be implying that the questions I've listed are examples of "irrationality, unreason and stupidity."


Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Speaking of which, I guess this is where our roads diverge and dialogue ends....

Certainly if you are implying that the questions I've listed are examples of "irrationality, unreason and stupidity."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #113 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Absolutely. I am a denier of irrationality, unreason and stupidity. I won't admit those things are worthy of sharing a level playing field with reason.

Speaking of which, I guess this is where our roads diverge and dialogue ends....

You wouldn't be the first to give up on a particular poster's inability to present any valid argument or debate.
post #114 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You wouldn't be the first to give up on a particular poster's inability to present any valid argument or debate.

Im sure not....nor the last either I guess.

Shame but sooner or later the law of diminishing returns sets in.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #115 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You wouldn't be the first to give up on a particular poster's inability to present any valid argument or debate.

So now tonton's chiming in. Good.

For the record, based on the implications of their posts and absent any denial, both tonton and segovius consider the following questions:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970

1. Is the earth warming? Yes? No?
2. If yes, then is it warming to a degree or at a rate that threatens humankind? Yes? No?
3. If yes, is there anything we can do about it? Yes? No?

To be examples of "irrationality, unreason and stupidity."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #116 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Absolutely. I am a denier of irrationality, unreason and stupidity. I won't admit those things are worthy of sharing a level playing field with reason.

Speaking of which, I guess this is where our roads diverge and dialogue ends....

Are you seriously stating that since he does not accept your position that anything he has to say is "irrationality, unreason and stupidity"?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #117 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Are you seriously stating that since he does not accept your position that anything he has to say is "irrationality, unreason and stupidity"?

Are you seriously saying - seriously saying - that this is how you understand what I wrote ?????

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #118 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Are you seriously saying - seriously saying - that this is how you understand what I wrote ?????


Well, I am overstating it a bit. I admit. So from your response I will take that be a no, not a general position. Which is good. So Just for the specific point that you addressed which was a response to:
2. If yes, then is it warming to a degree or at a rate that threatens humankind? Yes? No? Can we assume you are saying that this is an irrational, unreasonable and stupid (henceforth IUS) question?

Or was his response to your dismissal of the question what was IUS?

Wrong. This is a perfectly valid question. If you wish to deny it, then I guess this makes you a "denialist" of a different sort.

Just trying to find out why you are cutting of communication on this with him. He has not taken a stand yet, just asked questions to help clarify your position before debating.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #119 of 128
The precedent is set now that whenever any right wing loonies want to present evidence and studies collected and performed by experts in whatever field, we can just ignore whatever is presented as long as there exists some fringe element who disagrees, no matter what kind of faulty logic, reasoning, or science is used.

Of course, the chances of that happening are relatively low because...

a) right wing loonies rarely give two shits about evidence, studies, or experts

and

b) if there actually exists a consensus amongst a plethora of scientists in a particular field, chances are the rest of us actually accept the science anyway

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #120 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The precedent is set now that whenever any right wing loonies want to present evidence and studies collected and performed by experts in whatever field, we can just ignore whatever is presented as long as there exists some fringe element who disagrees, no matter what kind of faulty logic, reasoning, or science is used.

Of course, the chances of that happening are relatively low because...

a) right wing loonies rarely give two shits about evidence, studies, or experts

and

b) if there actually exists a consensus amongst a plethora of scientists in a particular field, chances are the rest of us actually accept the science anyway

No such precedent is set.

But if one wishes to one must first agree that what you claim is happening is indeed happening, and then one must acknowledge that you are willing to compromise your principles to become just like that which you despise. If you are then you have lost any moral high ground you claim to have. Have fun with that...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Short-term Weather Patterns: They Mean Nothing.