Congrats FX! 900 posts in one thread. That’s a remarkable achievement. Bear down, bring another bag of Cheetos down to the basement, and pound out another 100 content less posts. I want to see the full one grand performance!
I agree it’s pretty unlikely. The global warming scam depends on vagueness and ambiguity. With a clear definition, it would become impossible to simultaneously claim that (1) the evidence supports it; (2) scientists agree on it; and (3) if nothing is done, terrible things are likely to happen.
Do you agree that the world is hotter than it would be because of human action? I asked you that upthread and you seemed to answer yes.
What are you looking for exactly?
South Florida Winter 2013-2014 One of the Warmest on Record
Admit it. You are just fabricating your evidence out of thin air. Every link you post demonstrates the exact opposite of what you claim. Transparent, deliberate lies. It is so obvious, why do you persist in making yourself look like a hysterical fool?
The definition is found in the first page I shared.
The definition is found in the first page linked. The effects are enumerated in the second page.
Check the links to various studies given in the list.
Second sentence of the first paragraph:
“and the preponderance of evidence says it’s humans”
The catch is that vagueness works both ways.
Please quote it. Just use the cut and paste function on your computer. If you are telling the truth, it should take you about 20 seconds to do so.
What specifically is vague about my position?
Please provide 3 examples.
This is my favorite part:
Booyah!
Scroll up and you will see the quote in my previous post. The line is from the second sentence of the first paragraph.
I am not referring to your position but to the point that the argument of vagueness works both ways. It implies that global warming is a “scam” or it isn’t.
Hmmm . . .
That’s a statement not a definition but anyway, are you saying that “global warming” means any increase in global surface temperatures caused by humans, regardless of the mechanism and regardless of the amount of the increase?
I have no idea what this means. My position is that warmers have a tendency to leave the definition of global warming vague and ambiguous so as to conceal contradictions in their position. Since you say that “vagueness works both ways,” I take that to mean you are saying that people on the other side of the debate are keeping some aspect of their position vague and ambiguous. Is that what you are saying?
Now we have reached that wondrous point in the thread where the OP makes perfect sense.
You know in your heart it is true.
The whole page is a definition of global warming, and that includes the line taken from the same page.
To answer your question, please read the same page.
I don’t think “warmers” are trying to be vague. Rather, the issue is so complex no definitive conclusion can be made. Unfortunately, the same problem applies to those who oppose “warmers.” In short, no definitive conclusion can be made by both sides.
Unfortunately, we also face environmental damage and peak oil, and since multiple positive feedbacks have been observed (see the second link), then it becomes irrelevant to question global warming.
“The difference between weather and climate”
Unless you simply are ignoring pretty much everything, you know by now that the record cold is being blamed on global warming.
The problem with this line of handwaving is that record warm winters are also being blamed on global warming. It doesn’t mean it isn’t true, after all it could be possible, it may be the reason, and we might be seeing asymmetric climate change, driven by increasing CO2 levels. Notice how my statement is impossible to disprove.
This is the essence of what brazil84 keeps bringing up. The common view of “global warming” is so unscientific it’s impossible to know if it’s true or not. Anything can be blamed on global warming, even record cold and snow, which means you can complain about record cold days (like in the OP), and according to the common belief that global warming caused the cold, nobody can scientifically show you are wrong in any way.
Because according to the idiot opinion, “global warming is happening, we know this, so any bad weather might be due to global warming, even cold weather”, which is about as ignorant a view of things as it is possible to have.
It contains statements about global warming but no explicit definition.
Sorry, but it’s not my responsibility to sift through the page looking for a simple answer to a simple, reasonable yes or no question I asked you. And this is the last time I will ask:
Are you saying that “global warming” means any increase in global surface temperatures caused by humans, regardless of the mechanism and regardless of the amount of the increase?
Then why is it so difficult to provide a simple, explicit answer to my question? Please complete the sentence:
“Global warming” is the claim that ___________________________.
So you are not saying that those who oppose warmers are keeping some issue vague or ambiguous?
Nothing in the article about Atlanta refers to global warming.
Global warming may lead to extreme cold and hot seasons. More details can be found in the NAS final report on climate change and other sources, like
“It’s Cold and My Car is Buried in Snow. Is Global Warming Really Happening?”
The common view should not be confused with peer-reviewed scientific studies.
FWIW, various organizations have argued that there are connections:
while others study the matter further:
but the issue may involve more than just extreme weather, as seen in multiple positive feedbacks studied. These are enumerated in a previous link I shared earlier.