I'm sick of this Global Warming!

The BBQ Pit
2841

If “jerk” = lying weasel, then to an extent yes. But I am giving you a chance to substantiate your claims.

Actually, you can lie and weasel in GD too.

What exactly about my position is wrong? Of course you are unable to answer that question because your position is based on feelz.

Anyway, you basically admit that you are lying and weaseling because you feel you have a right to do it in this forum. So pretty clearly it’s you who are wrong.

Yes, as you seem to admit, you are a lying weasel.

What cites? Look, you claim that “the issue is climate change” and you define “climate change” as any change in the climate. Neither I nor anyone else in this thread disputes has changed or will change. No cites are necessary.

As you point out, you are free to lie and pretend that my position is something different from what it actually is. And I am free to point out that you are a liar.

2842

sproing

…Gotta stop bringing those irony meters on this forum.

2843

So the models are wrong in the 50 year, 100 year and 500 year time frames? That means they’re wrong, climatically speaking. Please post links to these four magically articles again, the four I was looking at were all self-published, so I’m assuming I read the wrong four.

2844

That’s an excellent point. Not only does it seem that the alarmists want an unchanging world, they want to the climate to be like it was from 1961-1980, which was one of the coldest and worst periods in recent history, at least for the US. Hell, even the eighties sucked for Florida, with terrible hard freezes, 1986 was incredibly bad. The same hard freeze that caused the Challenger disaster also wiped out much of the citrus industry. The hard freezes of 1983 and 1985 were incredibly bad.

I think it’s far worse than that.

I wouldn’t hold my breath. Whenever you get specific, the foaming at the mouth alarmists vanishes.

It was all blogs. But now blogs are the same as publishing in Nature or Science. If it agrees with you of course.

You can’t possibly be speaking to me. Apathy is not something anyone accuses me of.

This is why I always say facts and data just won’t matter. You can show an alarmists trends, 30 year trends of temperature data, and they still avoid reality. The easy out of screaming “cherry picking!” is so old at this point. Instead of responding we just hear “oh that’s cherry picking”, which is ironic, since by definition, it isn’t.

Cherry picking is where you ONLY present a set of carefully picked studies, experiments or observations, to try and sway an audience. You avoid showing everything, because you are trying to fool others. You don’t show your hand, because it’s not science, but a game.

I have no trouble laying the facts on the table
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17120601&postcount=1

But it’s obvious that those who want you to be alarmed, frightened, angry or scared, they play games.

2845

The problem with doing that, is it wastes your time. Seriously, if I tried to counter every lie, every deception and certainly every fuckhead who comes along wanting attention, there would be little time for research, for the fun stuff.

And considering the absolute lack of any reward, any payoff, any advance in knowledge that comes from showing some idiot how wrong they are, it’s an absolute waste of time. The big boys, the ones fucking with the data, or making false predictions/projections and trying to rile up the world, they might be worth fighting with, but certainly not the GIGObusters of the world.

Conversations like these are pretty much just for fun. It makes no difference to the world at large. It certainly seems to make no difference to the fuckhead preaching doom and claiming all who disagree with them are motivated by greed or malice. That’s the idiot stew of the internet right there, working hard to stir the pot.

Take the “coming ice age” scare of the fifties, sixties and seventies. The alarmists fuckhead is sure it was only the media and a few idiot climate scientists behind it, certainly the majority (the consensus) was all about global warming, even then. They actually believe this. They look to pseudoscience blogs for confirmation, and the SS feed them bullshit, and they consume it with out any skepticism at all.

Real actual science, real evidence, that is the last thing they want to discuss.

For example, the very real and very drastic global cooling that was behind the very real concerns over climate change. The alarmists actually thinks it didn’t happen, that somehow a few media outlets created the entire thing. How can anyone be that ignorant? For example, an actual scientific paper from a source that can not be handwaved away. An update on Global temperature variation, from NOAA

Here’s a screenshot for those who can’t be bothered to read a scientific manuscript.

The alarmists is a denier, because they refuse to look at, discuss or understand what a scientific paper like that means.

The deniers (global warming alarmists) are true fuckheads, because they actually don’t know much. Like WHY we have satellites measuring global temperatures, and sea ice, which started in 1979. Those goddamn satellites were funded and launched because of the cold. Not warming.

It was COLD that was the concern, and it was such cold that scientists worldwide were very concerned about climate change. The drastic increase in sea ice, the incredibly bad winters (the worst on record), the economic losses, the extreme danger, it was all a real thing.

Trying to convince an alarmists about this is a waste of time. They would rather read an SS blog page and just blindly go on, sure they know the truth about the ice age scare, than lift a fucking finger to learn anything about it.

Somebody that ignorant, so sure of their own idiot expertise, so easily swayed by alarmists nonsense, they aren’t worth the time of day, much less an extended effort to educate them.

2846

Well, you are right that small selected subsets of facts and data just don’t matter, unless you can convincingly show that they are a reliable proxy for all of the available facts and data.

Which you have never even come close to doing, in all your attempts to cast doubt on the validity of mainstream climate science research.

Except that the conclusions you attempted to suggest from the small selected subsets of facts that you “laid on the table” there were soundly rebutted in many subsequent posts in that thread, e.g.:

Hmm, sounds familiar. Ladies and gentlemen, FXMastermind, climate cherrypicker extraordinaire.

2847

Once again you clearly missed the more important part of that thread, obvious in the OP.

The only season NOT warming is winter. This is evident from all data, including snow cover, and SSTs. In fact, the winter cooling trend is so strong, it negates the obvious warming going on in the warm seasons of the NH. So we have this unique (based on past data) climate change going on, where warming has continued in the warm season, but NH winters have become very much colder. This is an unexpected thing. No models predicted it, and at present, no models can show why it’s happening.

The alarmists is in almost complete denial over this, even to the extent of trying to claim global warming is the CAUSE of the change.

And it is actually possible that it is. Colder winters, increasing cold season snow, changes to the circumpolar vortex, Hadley circulation, ocean circulation, nobody actually knows.

2848

You evidently can’t even be bothered to read your own cites that you mistakenly believe support your dishonest arguments against mainstream climate science.

The very paper you linked to makes it exceedingly clear that many climate scientists even as early the late 1970s were concerned about the likelihood of CO2-generated global warming, and were studying possible evidence of it in temperature data.

Yes, the signals of overall warming were very weak in the temperature data back then and scientists were also investigating evidence for several short-term and regional cooling trends, but you are simply full of shit when you try to pretend that that means that theoretical predictions of global warning and evidence tending to support them were not even on scientists’ radar. On the contrary, they were being taken very seriously.

Other direct evidence that the question of anthropogenic global warming was an issue of serious scientific concern before the last few decades:

In other words, scientists as early as half a century ago had begun to consider the hypothesis of manmade global warming an important scientific issue worthy of serious and immediate study. They spent the next few decades coordinating and conducting pioneering research and sorting out the evidence for different kinds of climate impacts from different sources.

By about the mid-1980s, the evidence for a greenhouse-gas-linked overall warming trend was solid and persistent enough to lay the foundation of the mainstream climate science consensus on the AGW hypothesis. And the continuing accumulation of data and analysis has continued to refine that hypothesis and strengthen that consensus ever since.

2849

Depends where and when you look. But you are merely bullshitting if you pretend that any of the recent climate data, whether it’s from the past very cold winter in North America or the simultaneous very warm winter in Europe or anywhere else, actually invalidates or disproves any significant parts of the AGW hypothesis.

Are current climate models sophisticated enough yet to fully explain and predict with complete accuracy and precision every observed fluctuation in climate data? Absolutely not. Is there any observed set of climate data that, taken in conjunction with all the other available climate data, seriously undermines or calls into question current climate science theories? Nope.

You’re persistently but vainly attempting to attack these theories with sweeping unsupported generalizations, selectively backed up with misleadingly presented cherrypicked data subsets, citations of scientific research that doesn’t even say what you think it says, and shit-talking and name-calling people who point out your errors. That’s all you’ve got.

2850

There is an example of the time wasting activity of the alarmists. If you get sucked into defending the strawman argument just created there, you lose. Yet, if you don’t point out what a load of steaming horseshit it is, the perception is avoidance. It’s why online discussions are ultimately useless. Any idiot can make shit up, and then demand you waste time debunking them. But it is actually an endless game. no matter what is done, the tide of nonsense rises. And there is no actual point to refute.

Instead of an actual fact, we get general nonsense. We get an opinion about what I believe, which is far from science as you can get.

This approach is so common, usually people fall for it, rather than point out it’s pseudoscience. There is no scientific claim in there. It’s just an insulting bit of idiot stew.

Like the following shotgun claim:

Unlike my pointed example, with an image and a paper provided, which clearly shows why I say SS is a bullshit blog, and the canned response to the “coming ice age” scare is bullshit, we get the same slippery vague claims, with no science involved. There is nothing to actual respond to.

Returning to fact based discussion, in 88 Hansen was using the rise from 1965 to 1988 as prime evidence of AGW, rather than the honest approach of showing that in fact, global temperatures had once more reached levels that were measured in the 1950s. His paper has recently been used as “evidence” that climate models were right, in case you missed it.

As usual, here are links and evidence, something easy to come by. His mention of the theory, something the alarmists refuse to define, much less discuss.

Yeah, there it is. The thing GIGO and company refused to define, miuch less discuss.

An actual look at global temperature change, (which matches the Meteorological paper I quoted a few posts back)

You can clearly see again, the drastic drop in global temperature, from 1960-1965, as well as how in 85/86 it still had not reached the warm period levels yet. Hansen actually notes this in the paper. (it’s the very first line)

See? There is actual science, and even the Hansen paper shows why the world was concerned about global cooling. Remember that the difference between an full blown ice age and “now” is about 4 degrees C

You can see that in less than 5 years, we observed a 1 degree C drop. The continued cold (into the late seventies) was an extreme event, it’s why the idiots who keep saying there was no real scare, no announcements from science about it, that it was just the media and a few scientists behind it, it’s exactly why they are fuckheads.

2851

Well that at least is specific enough to address. Lets use a scientific source and hammer-punch some sense into you.

Abstract
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/1/014007/
Full paper
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/1/014007/pdf/1748-9326_7_1_014007.pdf

Now I know it won’t matter, not to you that is, but still, I enjoy this shit.

The most up to date consensus from global climate models predicts warming in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) high latitudes to middle latitudes during boreal winter

When the alarmists realizes what that means, they tend to start objecting to it. But it’s actually a factual statement. Get used to it.

However, recent trends in observed NH winter surface temperatures diverge from these projections.

This is soft spoken but direct. It means, as the data I’ve linked to shows, that instead, the opposite happened. Of course this too will be disputed. Fuckheads do this often.

For the last two decades, large-scale cooling trends have existed instead across large stretches of eastern North America and northern Eurasia. Which is exactly what I have shown, in a scientific manner, multiple times now.

We argue that this unforeseen trend is probably not due to internal variability alone.

That is a critical point, because if it’s not from natural causes (like solar, atmospheric/ocean circulation changes, dust levels, volcanoes, ect) then it could actually be BECAUSE of global warming.

I suggest reading the entire thing. Three times. Then get back to me.

2852

Nobody is saying what you are arguing against. That’s what is so frustrating about trying to discuss. Not only is that true, but in the forties and fifties, the majority view was warming. The drastic warming had brought the theory back to life, it was the popular view. There were stories and research about global warming. It was the drastic cooling that caused both a rejection of the CO2 theory (once more), as well as the theory put forth by Ewing and Donn.

Note the mechanism they proposed, based on warming.
Another theory proposed by Ewing and Donn in 1956[39] hypothesized that an ice-free Arctic Ocean leads to increased snowfall at high latitudes.

This is exactly what Cohen et al (which I just linked you to above) is proposing as a possible mechanism for the observed winter cooling.

While science usually throws out the baby with the bathwater, then burns the baby and scatters the ashes, but it’s not always a good idea. Because “they” claimed there had never been an ice free arctic, everything Ewing and Donn talked about was tossed. Cohen et al might not even know about their research, they certainly don’t cite them.

And yet here we see what they predicted seems to be happening. As the world warms, the arctic sea ice decreases, but the winter snow has increased. And the NH winters are getting colder.

Science, it’s fascinating.

2853

That is just not true. Hell, even Brazil and watchwolf would both rip into me if all I did was post “sweeping unsupported generalizations”.

You know in your heart it’s true.

No, I post specific science based information, with clear points, with solid east to understand statements. With sources.

OK sometimes I rant and call people fuckheads, but if that was all there was, nobody would give a fuck. No, it’s the science that gets under the skin, that tickles the back of your mind, it’s the sources and scientific data that irks the alarmists, not just another idiot spewing nonsense and bile.

Speaking of, every now and then some fuckhead drops in and notes the number of posts made in this thread. Hell, even when combining many posts in one response, the sheer number of people to respond to forces the issue. There is no shame in it, unless it’s all vapid opinion, and no science.

Like the snow issue. It really drives the warmers bonkers when you bring that up.

But that is another complicated discussion. And time is short.

2854

Maybe I missed something, but how is losing one fucking orange crop somehow worse than the goddamn oceans freezing over for 100s of millions of years?

2855

That’s it? I type a mountain of facts and science and shit, and that is all you have to say?
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

2856

You don’t know shit about science. You’re a monkey with a keyboard.

2857

And so what shit do you know about science, Subterraneanus? Pray tell, what’s “Watts per square meter”?

2858

Oh, you can’t address the issue at hand, hmmm?

Please show your evidence that FX is not a monkey with a keyboard.

2859

Here, have a fucking banana:

2860

Oh, the scientific exactness of the things you read. So, you don’t know what a W m[sup]-2[/sup] is then. Let’s try something easier, what is the First Law of Thermodynamics?