# I'm sick of this Global Warming!

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440>\
**Category:** The BBQ Pit\
**Created:** [August 16, 2013, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440 "2013-08-16T18:57:18Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 654

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/654 "2013-09-20T20:58:01Z")

</div>

> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> I have, actually. If you felt that “anthropogenic global warning” was sufficiently defined in the thread already, then why were you complaining just a few posts ago about the lack of a definition for it?

Now I know you haven’t been reading.

> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> Well, if **that’s** the level of climate science concept that you’re struggling with,

See? Nobody said anything about feelings, it started when claims were made, and the people making them refused (or are unable) to simply explain what they mean. I blame gigogalloper, as he was by far the most prolific poster who simply can’t compose a paragraph explaining himself.

> [@Leaked IPCC report: 90% confidence in AGW is now 95% -- and sea level will rise!](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/131):
>
> The IPCC still got some items wrong like the actual loss of ice. But it is really silly for the contrarians to expect that finding one or a few wrong items means that we should overturn all the theory and science.

```
While that is an obvious strawman, still, what does he mean by "all the theory and science"? Then he started the other line of bullshit.

```

> [@Leaked IPCC report: 90% confidence in AGW is now 95% -- and sea level will rise!](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/131):
>
> It does not work that way, the problem for the contrarian is that it has to also propose an alternative that works (that is, that explains all the current warming and the effects observed). Otherwise the needed changes and modifications actually tell the scientists that the overall current theory is more robust now with the slight changes that were and will be made.

Once more, what does he mean by “the overall current theory”? That’s the hilarious and yet fucked up part.

> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> I think you can safely assume that typical readers of _Environmental Research Letters_ already have a grasp of the basic definition of “anthropogenic global warming” that’s at least as good as yours.  
> ?

Here we go again. It’s like the Wikipedia nonsense. if you search for “anthropogenic global warming” you get redirected to “Global Warming”, but that article does not contain the phrase “anthropogenic global warming”. Not even once.

> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> So again, why exactly were you complaining about a lack of a definition for “anthropogenic global warming”?

Like I said, you clearly have not read the thread. Dishonest indeed.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440)._