I'm sick of this Global Warming!

I can’t prove it myself of course, but based on data and research I’ve read, a possible factor in the unusual climate trends that we know are happening at present, may be due to the sun. If so, and we are also seeing warming due to greenhouse gases, deforestation and other human changes to the world, what in reality may be happening is a climate change unlike anything we know of in our historic records and theories about climate change.

That being said, I have no doubts that around 5000 years ago, the global climate was much warmer than it is at present. This is based on the science, and anyone who actually studies climate history knows that the global climate was much warmer than now, from around 8000 to 5000 years ago. It’s one of those hard scientific truths that has existed long before the climate hysteria of late.

We know, with no doubt at all, that all the glaciers in the USA are less than 5000 years old. That during what is called the Climatic Optimum, (or Holocene climatic optimum) the sea level was 3 meters higher, the arctic was ice free, and Greenland had much less ice. The world was warm, and there was no global disaster from it. Trees grew much higher on mountains, forest extended all the way north, and vast bogs and swamps existed year round where there now is permafrost. It’s where all that “stored methane” the alarmists worries about came from in the first place.

If you can get an alarmists to admit all that is true, they then claim the “rate of change” is faster. When that argument fails, it’s back to “civilization developed with conditions blah blah blah blah”, or “the sea level rise will cause”, which may be true.

But there is no methane disaster awaiting, much less any risk of the world ending from it getting warmer. Not anytime soon.

No, post 2293. Read it again. Near the bottom.

See above.

I’ve explained my position, which is that I trust the consensus of experts. You have some crazy fantasy that you are an expert. Which is silly.

NASA or the IPCC will do me fine, thanks.

I don’t think you understand the concept of Dunning-Kruger. Your ignorance makes you think you have something to offer. My looking into the issue, makes me realize that this is a problem beyond my level of personal expertise.

Again, all I’m advocating is siding with the best experts in the field. You’re assuming that your ignorant dabblings can overturn their work. Absurd.

And where is there disagreement? It’s already been shown that your claim that Brazil and FX are not part of the 0.02% Mr.Dibble cited. So what other bullshit are you trying to put forth this time as you try maddeningly to keep that straw man alive?

Reread the post where I mention FX and Brazil. What do I say about them specifically?

They suggested something in your own empty head, that is all. And now that that has been cleared up, you still act as if there is someone in this thread that falls into that 0.02%. Perhaps you’d like to attempt another list? Now that FX and Brazil are off of it, who would you say is on it?

Do I? I think you’re reading something into it, because of your personal anger.

Has clothy posted here? I’d guess he thinks it’s a liberal hoax.

If he tells me otherwise, I’ll accept that, though.

No, post 2293. Read it again. Near the bottom.
[/QUOTE]

I know. The progression goes like this: you made wrong guesses about FX, and wrong guesses about Brazil, in post 2251.

By post 2281, you’d been proven wrong about FX, and proven wrong about Brazil.

(With me so far?)

I read 2281, and saw you’d been doubly wrong about Brazil, and so wrote post 2286.

In post 2292, you noted that you – still had no idea what Brazil thinks. You did so in reply to 2286 (which, of course, came after 2281; it was caused by 2281).

I replied, accurately, to post 2292.

Granted, after post 2292, you apparently came around to my position: we now both apparently agree that all four of the observations you made in 2251 were bizarrely off the mark: FX and Brazil aren’t the “for two” you made 'em out to be, as shown when they answered upon being asked directly, like you figured they wouldn’t.

You’ve now moved on to making incorrect observations about me, which I hope you’ll soon abandon with equal vigor:

Have I said that I don’t trust the consensus of experts? Have I said I don’t think their predictions will come to pass? You claim I have a crazy fantasy of being an expert, because you’ve seen me – offer differing predictions? No, that’s not it. Perhaps you’ve seen me – insist they’ll be proven wrong? No, I haven’t said that either.

You have some crazy fantasy that I have some crazy fantasy.

But I didn’t claim I’ll be overturning their work. You, by contrast, did claim that I’m assuming something. You made that claim in error. You assumed.

But you think that recognizing the Dunning-Kruger effect at work is within your personal expertise. I’d like to suggest that, no, in much the same way that you “don’t understand the issue enough to make reasonable proclamations” when it comes to climate change, you maybe likewise “don’t understand the issue enough to make reasonable proclamations” when it comes to Dunning-Kruger.

Feel free to disabuse me of my fantasies.

The IPCC’s new report is out.

I don’t think he’s posted here. If so, you can correct me. But assuming he hasn’t, can we then say that there is no one involved in the discussion that does not accept that man has contributed to climate change?

So we can torch that straw man once and for all. Or at least to someone comes into to the thread and states he or she believes otherwise?

Of course? But…you’re a scientist!

I’d love to know what data and research backs you up.

I have a hypothesis I call the Meta-Dunning-Kruger effect: When an arrogant fool (such as lobohan) learns about Dunning Kruger, he becomes even more arrogant and more foolish. Because it’s that much easier for him to dismiss the points made by his perceived adversaries.

Of course it leads to an interesting situation: Each side ends up thinking that it is rational and it’s the other guys who are deluded. How do you break the symmetry? Well it’s not easy, but one difference is that I am willing to lay out my position in detail and concede points which favor the other side. The warmers generally conceal their position and/or take a “concede nothing!” approach to discussion.

I’ve found that to often be the case, or we see “the consensus says”, and wave after wave of “official reports”, and an avoidance of discussing actual data. Or theory. It’s an odd sort of thing, global warming/climate change discussions, so much like a political/moral/religious argument, rather than a science one.

While I can’t prove it, I suspect that is just sarcasm, and there is no honest interest at all involved.

If there was just one single science based topic here, I would probably post about it.

I don’t know if no one does. But I’ll take as true the idea that those who have said such definitively are telling the truth.

Again, I was only responding to their rhetoric. If you call people that trust the scientific consensus “warmists”, dismissively point out that it’s cold today someplace, and change the subject every twenty picoseconds, it does seem like you don’t agree with the scientific consensus.

That said, if everyone here agrees that the climate is warming due to man’s contributions, obviously not everyone agrees that this is a bad thing, or that there is anything that can, or should, be done to address it.

I don’t think of you as an adversary. I think of you as a sad, broken little man, with hilarious rules for debate and a painfully pathetic website where you “ban” other posters because that’s easier than arguing in good faith. I see you as a racist, hateful thing that struts around with a false sense of superiority because by attacking outward, you can’t see the inward rot and failure that interweave to form your thews. My adversaries are people made of better stuff.

So, “warmers” aren’t people who think the world is warming due to man’s activities. They are people who think this is a negative thing? Or are they people who overstate the likely severity?

“It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.”
Harry Frankfurt, author of On Bullshit

THIS JUST IN FROM MR. POT:

[quote=“Lobohan, post:2315, topic:666440”]

I see you as a…hateful thing that struts around with a false sense of superiority because by attacking outward, you can’t see the inward rot and failure that interweave to form your thews.

I don’t think of you as an adversary. I think of you as a sad, broken little man, with hilarious rules for debate and a painfully pathetic website where you “ban” other posters because that’s easier than arguing in good faith. I see you as a racist, hateful thing that struts around with a false sense of superiority because by attacking outward, you can’t see the inward rot and failure that interweave to form your thews. My adversaries are people made of better stuff.
[/QUOTE]

Hmm. Well, in this thread you’ve reached conclusions about brazil84, and he’s reached conclusions about you – and we’ve seen, in this thread, that when you reached conclusions about brazil84 that could be proven false, they soon were. And you did the same with FX. And near as I can tell, you did the same with me.

So if you think he’s got a false sense of superiority, and he thinks you have a false sense of adequacy, I think you’re probably just wrong about him again, again.

As I say, they’ve been evasive, or at least unintelligible in the past. I don’t have a particular desire to explain it to you again, but since you think you’re got a supreme gotcha, feel free to march it around for a bit.

As for Brazil, check out his racism threads and his blog, then tell me what you assessment of our friend is.

Look, if I’m ever in a thread where he makes a flawed claim about race – or a flawed claim about anything else – I’ll gladly offer an assessment on the spot. And if I ever happen to be in a thread where you’re offering up half-a-dozen flawed claims, I’ll of course point that out likewise.

Since you did the latter over the last couple of pages, I assessed you on the spot; if I ever see him following your example, I’ll assess him accordingly.