# Do global warming "skeptics" honestly see us as a benign species? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 5, 2014, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984 "2014-01-05T23:18:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 544
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/544 "2014-02-17T17:30:32Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > That has to be a last resort tactic, the “If you think you are so smart you should publish instead of annoying the living fuck out of me with your facts and your science links”. No, it’s a basic criteria. You seem to have an observation based on the facts that runs contrary to the climatological consensus. So _publish it_, and then maybe we’ll grant it the same credence you grant, say, Michael Mann’s extensive library of published research (which includes some of the most-referenced and most-vetted scientific literature in the history of climatology - there are almost no papers that have undergone as much scrutiny as Mann’s “hockey stick”, and very few that have undergone such scrutiny have been so clearly vindicated by the evidence). Because, I’m going to be frank here. _I do not trust you_. I do not consider you a credible source. I do not think your interpretations are valid, I do not think your “research” has any bearing on reality, and I do not think that your claims would hold up to any scrutiny by people who are trained in scientific analysis in general and climate science in particular. I am not trained in scientific research. > [@](#): > > It’s also quite novel. The goal might be to make it stop, but it just sounds like encouragement to me. Encouragement to _take your shit and publish it_. Fulfill the most basic requirements for a scientific hypothesis to be taken seriously before spamming it all over the forum. > [@](#): > > Since this topic has become yet another “argument” over “is it happening”, Well, we have some rather annoying denialists who won’t stop propping up pseudoscience… > [@](#): > > There is an obvious problem with such flawed logic. We know what happens when there is a warmer arctic, it happens each year. The polar jet streams weaken and move poleward, reducing the extreme weather. It’s when there is a lot of high pressure (cold) air at the pole that we see extreme weather. > > Also, this is just one more example of predicting something from global warming, after it has happened. If climate models and predictions from them had actually predicted the extreme cold, and the cooling trend for NH boreal winters, it would be a different story. Your so-called cooling trend has been debunked by no less than two people in multiple threads on this forum. Give it a rest. As for the extreme cold, guess what: [not](http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014036/article) [that](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD013568/abstract) [new](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL037274/abstract). It’s certainly bizarre to present this as a “new” story when it’s at least four years old by now. > [@](#): > > I would bet the researchers don’t even realize what they are doing. Arctic amplification is one of the oldest and well known hypothetical mechanisms to predict disastrous warming. It’s a key part of global warming theory. It’s so important, you can’t actually have global warming with out it. > > Using it after the fact to explain completely unexpected events and winters and storms and well, pretty much anything can be blamed on global warming. It makes it useless for predictions, for being able to plan ahead. I don’t even know what to say to this. This is so fundamentally wrong that there’s really not left to do beyond shake my head and say, “Yep, that’s denialism in action”. You don’t seem to understand arctic amplification or are misusing the term; it simply refers to the fact that the poles, in particular the Arctic (the Antarctic has dampening factors), warm more quickly than the rest of the planet. I have no idea where you got this idea that “you can’t have global warming without it”. As for blaming anything on global warming… Well, newsflash: _sometimes, when we blame things on global warming, it’s because global warming is causing them_. Do you see why I don’t trust you to offer any sort of rational analysis of available data? At all? > [@](#): > > A warm stormy winter, a dry warm winter, a very cold winter, a disastrous winter, or an unexpectedly mild winter, they are all global warming now. Have you considered getting your head out of the tabloid press? You might be slightly less misinformed. But please, by all means, point out where scientists in peer-reviewed journals have blamed all of above on global warming. I’ll wait. Just like I’ll wait for your explanation of why climategate is a big deal. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > There is no weather than can’t be explained and blamed on global warming. > > That’s not science, or even meteorology anymore. You are completely clueless. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > It’s looking at the goddamn data. Yeah. However, coming to a rational conclusion based on the data in a highly complex system with a large error bar and a lot of statistical noise? That’s _hard as hell_. It’s something that many people just can’t do. And as said, if you think I’m going to trust _you_ to provide a reasonable analysis of the data… … Dude, you fucking believe climategate is meaningful. What are you even doing here? --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984)._