Best post of the thread, especially given your user handle. Kudos!
Cute, except for the fact that global cooling may have had, what, 5 or 6 academic papers taken kinda, sorta seriously enough to think about?
Global warming was predicted – in 1896.
It has been predicted again and again and again in the 125 years since – with near perfect accuracy.
Global cooling? Not so much.
Good point. I was being naive in assuming he had just misunderstood the authorship of the Lancet article. The link to it appears in the third fucking word of the summary I cited, yet he “couldn’t find it”. Also, he doesn’t know anything about the Harvard Chan School of Public Health – his attempted ad hominem consisted of a copy’n’paste of the first paragraph of their own description from their own Harvard website. I assume because “public health activism” struck him as dirty socialist fightin’ words, or something. Definitely pinging my trolldar now.
Speaking about that, something contrarian sources never mention to their marks is that their predictions from their few “experts” of the right wing and skeptics were way of the mark. About ten years ago many of those harped about “the pause” that was not there and predicted that things were going to cool down.
I also learned about the “Greenhouse Effect” in junior high school in the late 60s. I’ve added a quick refresher in case you have forgotten.
I’m sure that you have never been a teacher, so you probably don’t understand how long it takes for books and lesson plans to be updated. If I learned about it in the 60s, climate change was a thing at least 40 years earlier.
Names change, the problem keeps getting worse.
Erm, I would, in situations analogous to this.
Firstly, let’s note that in the post you’ve quoted, I asked who are the supposed hypocrites you are referencing. Because it’s a republican talking point and you’ve apparently bought into it uncritically.
But secondly, yeah it would be irrelevant anyway. If, hypothetically, someone who has dumped 10 tonnes of CFCs tells me that I shouldn’t dump CFCs because they are bad for the environment, and shared links to the scientific data to illustrate that fact…then, sure, I can say that person is correct. What punishment or public shaming they should receive for their personal actions would be a separate issue.
Same think for Stefan Strawman who jets around the world on his private jet, does nothing to offset his carbon footprint and points out the present and growing danger of climate change.
Kind of ironic that you don’t understand that it has “Harvard” in its name because it is a part of Harvard University. The affiliation with the medical school didn’t stop because it was an inferior institution, but because the research focus of the two institutions are different. The research focus of the School of Public Health is the one relevant to the effects of Climate Change.
The OP definitely doesn’t know what that means. He’s regurgitating talking points he’s picked up and half-digested. That you couldn’t spot that identified you as a horrifyingly biased reader.
Or alternatively, it may mean that EastUmpqua does not know what that means either.
Quite possibly so. Either way, based on the evidence to date, at this point I’m going with “troll” rather than “horrifyingly biased”. Despite professing great interest in discussing the relative importance of the climate change problem, he appears to have no interest whatsoever in any of the facts provided, preferring to engage in ad hominem attacks.
So I’ve been told this kind of comment is acceptable in the BBQ pit. I guess it’s not worse than some comments made by some of my ‘friends’ on Facebook. And you’re right, I did read some of the posts on this thread out of order. Some of the posts on this thread have included very interesting links from respected sources. And some people just like to say “dick-head”.
Hey, I’m not a troll. I have read most of the articles that were linked to on this thread. I have a couple more to read. I didn’t know that there were global warnings about CO2 emissions that long ago. I am familiar with most of the statistics. I am willing to listen and learn. Were you referring to me with “engaged in ad hominem attacks”? If so, I will try to behave better.
I thought about this. Say someone’s a hypocrite, and they agrees with an ideology. Just because that person doesn’t accept the consequences of their actions regarding the subject, it doesn’t devalue the ideology itself. I stand corrected.
No, it’s not “acceptable”. It’s the entire fucking point. Disingenuous trolls are best engaged with in the Pit, because to properly engage them elsewhere leads to sanctions from above. How have you been at the SDMB for 5 years and not understood such a simple thought process?
Oh, really? You never even clicked on the main page of the latest IPCC AR5 report on climate change impacts that I cited. You never even clicked on the simple chart I posted summarizing climate change impacts. You pretended to misunderstand the authorship of the Lancet paper I cited, and tried to disparage the Harvard School of Public Health while not understanding – or pretending not to understand – what it was, or who had actually authored the paper that it cited.
Fuck you and your feigned “politeness”. As the old saying goes, “fool me once, … etc.” You’re not just disingenuous, you have all the earmarks of a goddamned troll, and I won’t be fooled twice.
Either that or you’re so incredibly immersed in the right-wing denialist zeitgeist that it’s pointless trying to have a dialogue with you.
I joined Straight Dope 5 years ago by asking a (kinda dumb) question about the relationship between quantum mechanics and General Relativity in General Questions. I learned a ton from some very patient people. I never ventured much into the pit. I haven’t run into sanctions from above on other threads I’ve commented on, but my ignorance has been pointed out more than once. I see in the pit a lot of passive-aggression, and a lot of ‘I’m smarter that you are’, or ‘you’re a dick head’. I think I’ll just watch for a while.
Also, he “didn’t know that there were global warnings about CO2 emissions that long ago”
After touting his expertise and degree in climate science.
Right. Totally believable.
I looked up John Tyndall in wikipedia and followed some links, and I went to the IPCC website. Sorry I didn’t click on your links.
Atmospheric Science. We studied mostly interactions between the earth’s surface and the atmosphere, mostly short term, like weather forecasts. I did have a course or two on climate.
To be fair, I only called you a dick head because you were acting like one.
And if this gives you the vapours, then don’t wander into a thread posted by a now suspended nutter who thinks the Earth was captured by the sun after wandering through interstellar space, and say that he “understands atmospheric science better than most.”
Pro-tip.: Don’t brag about your 35 year old qualifications, and then show a near total misunderstanding of the basic fundamentals of your degree.
Also, Don’t brag about your qualification, full stop. On the internet, nobody knows if you are a dog, or Alain Aspect.