A web page with no author, and no sources, which makes it as valuable as your opinion about this. Like I said, you show me a source that claims water vapor is a feedback loop in the atmosphere, and you have some facts. Just repeating something that isn’t true, will not make it a fact.
I thinkthe meaning of thatwas missed somehow. It’s not that somebody ignores a fact, the fact never even makes it into the rational mind. Instead a more primitive part of the brain takes over, and the facts don’t matter.
That is Quest at KQED, PBS for you. The source and funding is the National Science Foundation.
You see there is a method to the madness, I always like to test is a contrarian can look around a site.
That was only to show that academia and educators are telling us like it is, it is you the one that has to show that the sources they are relying on are wrong.
That is Quest at KQED, PBS for you. The source and funding is the National Science Foundation.
You see there is a method to the madness, I always like to test if a contrarian can look around an educational site.
We already know that experts are not to educate people like FX, but others can learn that experts already looked and answered assumptions like this one:
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
But if something as basic as what was the temperature for a place and time is argued over, or worse, we find the data is “adjusted”, and changed, and then presented as “a fact”, and now the argument is over “what actually was the factual temperature”, it’s just crazy at that point. One might ask, why would anyone change the temperature record?
[/QUOTE]
It is a fact that confronted with scientists telling us what is going on FX just resorts on calling the scientists that contribute to RealClimate as “Nobodies”, but as anyone can see, the sources FX uses, like Paul Homewood and Christopher Booker, are the ones that are not interested in looking at the science.
Don’t waste your time with this, Gigo. Over a year ago, in my response to the ridiculous FX claim that no one has ever mentioned water vapor feedback, I linked to 291,000 scientific papers that did just that (currently there are 1,240,000 of them!). I’ve explained it many times and in my most recent post on the subject I had already provided a link to Yale Climate Connections that discusses how water vapor feedback works; the IPCC has discussed it in detail in every WG1 report; I had already provided a further description cited from Climate Change and Climate Modeling (J. Neelin, Cambridge University Press), specifically from Sections 6.3, Climate Feedbacks, and 6.4, The Water Vapor Feedback, pages 201-206. I also explained why the feedback always reaches a point of equilibrium and is therefore stable, another basic fact that FX didn’t know.
No reasonable person at this point could possibly fail to understand the basics of atmospheric water vapor feedback, and anyone who had attended a class in high school science would not have failed to understand it in the first place. It is no longer plausible that this is just a matter of ignorance. You cannot argue with someone who is not interested in an honest discussion and never has been.
Of course I know of your excellent efforts before, but I also posts to teach others, the point here was to show that indeed even high schoolers are learning what the scientists and experts have reported. It is also good to realize how in places where this counts, contrarian sources like Christopher Booker are completely ignored as they are just full of hot air.
wolfpup and GIGObuster, I am not sure what you are worked up about. FXMastermind insists that people simply can’t see various facts when they are pre-disposed to disbelieve them and then he demonstrates that with a personal example.
I don’t have a problem with any poster using their own errors to point out human foibles.
As I said I post to teach others and to learn too, and I agree with you about the part about him using his own errors, it just does not mean that no one is learning from them. I also do as I become aware of the sources out there that are poisoning the debate.
As a Mod, you have seen more than a few threads, moderated a few discussions, been around. Have you ever witnessed somebody change their mind, based on being presented with facts?
How about massive walls of opinions? Ever observed anyone simply change their mind after being “presented” with an endless wall of text?
No, those tend to be counterproductive. People feel like they’re being blitzkrieged, and they don’t like it. It seems to be more effective to work on one point at a time, with patience and as much courtesy as possible. People are far more open to a respectful debate than to the other kind.
A corollary might be that Pit Threads don’t exist to convince anyone…
Anyway, yes, seriously, I have seen people’s minds changed by well-executed debate. I’ve changed my mind a few times on this basis, and I’ve successfully persuaded others.
Obviously, most of the time a debate forum is an echo chamber between two brick walls… (Also a place where mixed metaphors go to die.)
Well, it has been noticed by experts that the temperature adjustments are appropriate and, if anything, the unadjusted data makes the climate change even worse.
For more information:
If the basic reply to that is to claim that the experts are involved in a conspiracy or that no one has discussed and checked the data before, that is not really being respectful or mindful of what the facts are.
And of course our former SDMB member, Astronomer and physicist Phil Plat (The Bad Astronomer) has a few lines about this reheated “controversy”
So once again, The Telegraph, Christopher Booker, FOX news and many others are just deceiving many skeptics, skeptics that did not bothered to check good sources of information that discussed issues like this in the past.
It’s funny because a while back in one of these topics (they all start to seem the same at some point) I used an example of how CO2 could be a feedback loop, if you define something as a feedback loop because it causes more of itself to happen. Of course the howls of protest were loud and long, but just yesterday while looking for a source that would say “water vapor is a feedback loop”, which of course I could not find, I ran across a paper that actually says CO2 causes a feedback loop, because CO2 causes warming, which leads to drought, which leads to forest fires, which leads to more CO2, which leads to more warming, which leads to more drought, which leads to more forest fires, which leads to more CO2. A feedback loop!
(my example was using the oceans, where as the CO2 caused warming, more CO2 outgasses from warmer oceans, leading to more warming, leading to more CO2, a feedback loop)
I never thought of forest fires. It’s a pretty good example of a feedback loop.
(Post shortened)
Of course, but as wolfpup showed anyone can go and look at the links he provided, like this one, to see that indeed you can not, and let the record show that you are not only avoiding what he found, but also what we continue to find:
That the experts are not involved in a conspiracy, that they discussed and checked the data before, and the ones you believe about this are not interested in science, only in misleading others.
I have seen views change based on facts a number of times, but it is certainly not a frequent occurrence. The irony of this thread has been that you attempted to use the research conclusions to attack/discredit your opponents in a different debate, (which, of course, got dragged over to this one), but that the exact same findings apply to your own position in that same ongoing discussion.