Oh, I quit paying attention quite a while back. I just pop in every now and then to remind people that you are a follower of a religion. Unfalsifiable claims, a “bible” of websites that tell you what you want to hear, a High Priest in Al Gore, and a carbon tax for a collection plate. Nobody can make a valid point except for you because some yahoo on the internet has already thought of the criticism and posted a rebuttal. You don’t seem very capable of independent thought in this area…you are a Fundie.
I remember a while back I made a reference to Al Gore and you immediately posted a “rebuttal” from one of your worshipper websites to demonstrate how the “deniers” use ol’ Gore as a punching bag to smear the whole movement. Truly sad.
More silliness. If you are correct it should not be difficult to get a cite from a scientific organization that thinks that just looking at the last years is an honest thing to do.
Yep. tlTrully sad to see false skeptics dumping even on the few real skeptical scientists that report that the warming is there but it will be not as bad. Clearly many did not get the memo.
In reality what you are doing here is embracing a creationist level understanding of what scientists are reporting. And claiming that the one quoting science is following a religion is the scientific version of a godwin. It is an open admission that deniers ran out of ideas and resort to points that woo woo followers use: claiming that science is religion is indeed an overused card by followers of pseudoscience.
Your original plot showed a single en echelon cooling trend. But when we look back to 1850, we see that there are other “cooling” trends. Doesn’t matter–the overall linear trend is positive.
Your conclusions are suspect.
It’s because how you’re manipulating the data. Forget, for a moment, that it’s about AGW; let the data represent the expansion dynamics of the Pismo Beach Tsetse Fly, or Cygnus X-1’s consumption of space carrots. You haven’t provided a rational compelling arguments why you picked 2002 through the present, while tossing aside the rest.
If your going to argue that there is a negative trend that seems to start in 2002 and continues to this day–then I’d say your argument is compelling and the data seems to support that conclusion. But only from 2002 till present.
On the other hand, let’s see what the trends are if we go back 20, 30, & 40 years ago:
I knew that no matter how clearly the information was presented, the alarmists just can’t look at what is being discussed. Which is global warming and hurricanes. The poor alarmists is, as I said multiple ways, faced with a conundrum.
Of course my points are ignored, and they want to argue global warming in the largest sense. The topic is asking about storms, warming, and what happened? Arguing global warming isn’t the issue.
Just as I said, the 11 year period being discussed is hand waved away, or the goal posts get moved. Anything rather than discuss storms and warming and what happened.
Knowing full well the deep ocean missing heat would come up, I spoke to that issue, in regards to the storms.
That is an obvious fact, and important because we are discussing hurricanes and temperatures. If there wasn’t any warming, then the hurricane data makes sense, if the hypothesis is correct. That is the essential point, which no alarmists can discuss, because it means they have to admit that the records show troposphere temps and SSTs have slightly declined since 2002
There is the data. Of course when you can’t just deny it, as GIGO has tried to do multiple times, you have to switch the conversation to something else. Even when I clearly stated that a short 11 year period is no important in the long run. To quote, “Again, an 11 year period that shows a downturn does not mean the warming is done”
I don’t expect the alarmists to ever answer those points. Which is why they can’t actually discuss the topic.
I note that some scientists are indeed discussing it, because it’s impossible to just ignore it any longer.
See? I clearly stated “Of course picking a start point to try and make a point isn’t proof of much”. The 2002-2013 trend is on the table because of the hurricane issue, not to deny global warming. Not that there is any hope that an alarmist will honestly discuss the hurricanes.
Nobody is challenging your religion. We are discussing hurricanes and warming in the last decade or so. Predictions were made, especially after 2004/2005 about monster storms. The “new normal”. Fear was created by climate experts, people were frightened.
What happened? Which is why the the NH temps and SSTs are being discussed.
He says you’re making unfalsifiable claims; you say he’s run out of ideas – not that he’s incorrect, since you happen to be making unfalsifiable claims, but that it’s bad form for him to compare your unfalsifiable claims to a religion’s unfalsifiable claims.
Why attack the comparison when you could simply remove it? Why not just provide a falsifiable claim, so that he’d stop being right?
And of course you have not read the thread, but it is not my problem that you want to fall down in flames and at the same time demand that others follow your say so that is the **reverse **of what experts reported.
You lost already as he even congratulated me in this tread for doing so, he is sore for demanding that I do the same for the straw man point you are making.
You’ve indeed made a testable prediction about a tenth-of-a-degree-per-decade rise in temperature. You haven’t, as far as I can tell, made a testable prediction about hurricane intensity. I’m amazed that – so long as you’re making claims about both – you can be so obliging about the former and so obstinate about the latter.
And of course if it is a religion it should be easy to cite the scientific organizations that are reporting all this is bogus, but that cite will never come, only more cherry picking from organizations that are telling us what they are finding.
As the refusal to deal with the fact that the la nina years are getting warmer shows *, the ones that are really using religion cannot even tell others what scientists or organizations are agreeing with their nonsense.
those years are also “by coincidence” the years in a cycle that deniers are using to claim that there is no warming.
Everyone else just needs to check Post #104 as our intrepid poster here is not capable of finding it. As reported before, showing all that you do not know what is a cherry pick and why one should avoid it should had been enough to show all who is not understanding the science.
Yes, we’ve been over that one before: I noted that said post didn’t spell out what would prove your claim false, and instead of providing specifics you – castigated me for not using my imagination. Regardless of what happens in years to come, you can still say your prediction hasn’t yet been proven false – and you’d even be right, since you haven’t actually said what would prove you wrong.
Remember, I wouldn’t need to use my imagination if you’d simply lay out the terms of your choice. That you haven’t done so makes post 104 irrelevant.
Are we back to that again? Let me expand on my immediately prior post: you provided that testable tenth-of-a-degree-per-decade claim after moving the goalposts from a second claim, after moving the goalposts from a first claim. Your first claim was, simply and only, that X number of years without warming would count against your position; I responded accordingly.
Dopers should’ve descended on you like a plague of locusts o’er the land for picking that first criterion, but they didn’t; more’s the pity.
You later realized your mistake and came up with a different criterion that wasn’t susceptible to a cherry-pick; I responded accordingly to that one likewise. You then came up with the current criterion, and I responded accordingly to that one. Even now, I stand ready to react accordingly if you propose a new and different criterion – yes, even one that’s susceptible to a cherry-pick. I hope you don’t; I hope you’ll now stick to claims that aren’t as ill-advised. But if you feel like moving the goalposts to a fourth spot, I’ll play along as ever.
tl;dr? You provide the criterion and I’ll respond accordingly. That’s all there is. That’s all there ever was. There isn’t any more.
Bingo, and it was enough to show how broken your toy falsification tool really is, once again, simple logic should tell anyone that finding that there is no increase in intensity after the significant signal that Emmanuel and others found would be enough.
And so is finding that all that measured increase in energy and material in the background is not doing anything to the hurricanes that come.
BTW I got confused in the last post and the cherry picking is actually directed to FXMastermind, but that another history, that one is of you not being able to take on “supporters” that are not really helping. Or it is that the support you get is so pathetic that you have to tacitly support the silliness that they post.
This isn’t the pit, so I can’t give this what it deserves.
GIGObuster: keep on keeping on! You’re the voice of reason here. Please stay with it. I’m not able to do the research needed – I’m amazed that you can afford the time! I’m thankful that you do, and I always find your posts convincing.
The fact that you don’t engage in straw-man crap of the type quoted above is only part of your convincing style of debate.
My only request would be to try to keep from exhibiting anger. Damn hard, given how provocative some of the posts are here. But every time you say something snarky, no matter how true it is, it only bolsters their illusion of legitimacy.
(But the comparison to Duane Gish was spot on. Alas, we are in the presence of creationist-style reality denial.)
(Al Gore as High Priest? Yeah, yeah, and I’ll bet they’re still mad at Jane Fonda for being a Traitor. Get with the times, guys! There are lots of people far more influential today than Al Gore! It’s a silly straw-man attack for being seriously outdated!)
Good heavens, man, that’s simultaneously (a) obvious, and (b) vague to the point of being useless. It requires no imagination on my part – or clarity on yours – to say that you’d be proven wrong if there’s no increase in intensity; my whole point is that you’re refusing to spell out what you think that means.
For some reason, you keep repeating yourself and stopping one step short; it would take you less time and effort than you’ve spent on all these posts – indeed, probably less than you’ve spent on any of these posts – to just define your terms: something something average miles per hour, something something duration of hurricanes, something something anything less than X amount of time could be disregarded as short-term weather and possibly a fluke, but anything more than Y years would be long-term climate and prove me wrong – no, don’t you cherry-pick a year; start from representative year Z.
Well, here’s the part I’ll explicitly rather than tacitly support; the first part is my reply to you, the second is his response to me:
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
[QUOTE=The Other Waldo Pepper]
And so you go on, spending time and effort composing reply after reply instead of simply ending my objection.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve run into this sort of thing on many other forums. Pointing it out won’t help, because as you probably know by now, to make a prediction means having to be accountable at some future date.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with him on that: you’re not making a falsifiable prediction about intensity. I agree with him that you can’t be held accountable at some future date, because your claims about future intensity are coy to the point of vagueness – and because of that, the rest is moot: insofar as your predictions are meaningless, he can’t possibly agree with you or contradict you.
Did I tacitly support him when he said you’d never make a testable claim? Of course not; I stated that you’d done so – and, once you got “confused”, I promptly explained that you’ve moved the goalposts from one testable claim to another testable claim and thence to a third testable claim.
Tell you what: if you’ll now make a testable claim about intensity as you have for temperature, and if FXMastermind then persists in his criticism, we can see whether I tacitly support him or explicitly support you. (Sure, maybe he’ll be obliging as soon as you’re obliging, but why not find out?)
Actually it refers to the other point I’m making, your toy falsification tool is broken.
It is not vague at all to point that just a demonstration that what Emmanuel referred to is not taking place would falsify it, falsification does not depend on waiting for a trend, other scientists can check on the data for errors or show that other factors are missing that show his conclusions are off; so really, after so many years on going on about falsification the reality is that you can not begin to imagine logical ways to falsify this, IMHO the reason is simple, the implication all along is an attempt to show others that what Emanuel and others are doing is not science, this effort is just pathetic.
Attached to that is the also ongoing denial that scientists did report on the “no trend up or down” on the number of hurricanes coming in a warming world, IMHO the effort here is that it does not fit with the denial narrative that claims that there is no science going on and the climate scientists are just alarmists, that it was climate scientists the ones that told a few to drop their idea that there was a trend in the numbers going up does not match the narrative that the “cabal” of scientists that are only pushing alarmism,
Finding that in the real world scientists actually **did **use science to drop the idea that the numbers would increase does not compute to the false skeptics, it has to be ignored furiously at all costs.
And many thanks to user_hostile, Trinopus and all other that have no trouble identifying the clear dishonest points of other posters that our intrepid one here is not able to see how harmful is for his side to support them.
I shouldn’t have to imagine ways to falsify it! So long as you’re the one making the claim, you’re the one who should spell out what you mean by it!
The weakness of your position can’t possibly be put in starker relief: you’re asked to name your own terms – and your only answer is to fault the guy making the request, saying he should use his imagination – and you denigrate those who compare so unfalsifiable a claim to the unfalsifiable claims of a religion?
This couldn’t be more basic: that you heap vitriol on me for refusing to imagine up a criterion for your prediction only emphasizes that you’re failing to provide one to begin with. If anyone else puts words in your mouth, you can always say they’re wrong; you, and only you, can clarify your own vague stance.
Just “imagine” the logical reaction in literally any other context: a white supremacist says blacks are inferior – and refuses to say what could prove him wrong. “Use your imagination,” he says. How would the SDMB react? How would you react? Sensibly, I hope – but this thread gives me reason to wonder. Someone tells you all major diseases will be wiped out before long; what would prove him wrong? Only he can say. Why the heck wouldn’t you ask him? A man says he’ll bet you a thousand dollars the US will outperform China at the next Summer Olympics; what does that mean? More medals? More gold medals? Some sort of weighted medal count? A per-capita medal count? He obviously has something in mind; shouldn’t he spell it out?
Meh, it is not hard to figure out a falsification, it is part of showing others how capable you are at your so called strength and it allows one to explain why a falsification is faulty, just telling others that it is “vague” is only stalling as it is clear that you are implying that there are other less vague answers you know, so it is your turn to show all that you do understand what the scientists are actually saying… Unless of course you are admitting that it was all part of the JAQ effort.
The way to react to white supremacists is to show with quotes how off base their misinterpretations of the science is, and I already showed that in other threads that is not hard at all, even “vague” claims of falsification are not hard deal with when pseudoscience is being used by an opponent. Your continuous refusal at even looking for another simple quote that shows that the scientists preferred your interpretations just demonstrates how off base you remain.