There’s that counterproductive attitude again.
Dodge #7, really, just more evidence that all along you were just JAQing off all this time. 
WTF? This is a valid question:
With all your love of science, don’t you think it’s helpful in a discussion for people to define their terms? Why not just answer? If you’re so sure of your position, you should be happy to have FXMastermind take you through a line of questioning and still prove him wrong.
One reason these debates always rehash the same stuff is a reluctance on your part to plant a flag in the ground. Make a clear claim that can be refuted and defended. Sheeze, you’d probably save yourself about 25 hours of typing a week!
GIGO, as always I marvel at your reluctance to give a simple and straightforward answer upon request.
In the past, I’ve seen you delay for weeks before eventually supplying the response you (a) already know and (b) could easily provide right at the outset; why not skip straight to doing so now? Why spend post after post after post on all sorts of other things when you could just do the useful part first?
When asked by FXMastermind about “the definition, explanation and predictions that the theory makes”, you could respond in no time flat with a single sentence – “oh, the current predictions will be proven incorrect unless we see at least X increase in global average temperature between year Y and year Z,” say – and, if you’re so inclined, you could swiftly follow up with a crisp and brisk sentence about hurricanes and tornadoes likewise.
I know you could; you’ve reluctantly done so before, and merely need to repeat yourself here. But, as before, you prefer to wait for an unnecessarily long time, and then wait a bit longer, and then for some reason keep waiting, as if to say no, it’s not yet a good time to simply mention what I have in mind.
Why be coy? If you’re going to relay your to-the-point answer in the end anyway, why not just trumpet it at the beginning?
No, you are obtusely ignoring that the issue was the global warming theory, in this case the one from Plass and the follow ups, what FXMastermind is doing is indeed not dealing with that and going for further JAQs It is not a discussion indeed just avoidance of the facts.
And the lie from you is that I indeed did answer, yes 3 times, the fact that you are ignoring that is enough to see that indeed you also prefer to ignore and not deal with one of the most important lines of evidence.
I already did, you are not paying attention, or you just got a request for help from FX that as usual omitted what I did reply already to him, the avoidance is now coming from him and really, seeing stupid things repeated like :“there is no theory” or “no evidence for water vapor feedback” calls to a request of an acknowledgement that continue to keep those points is bananas, otherwise there is not much to discuss and FXMastermind knows it.
Do you honestly believe FXMastermind knows what hypothetical future evidence you think would suffice to prove you wrong?
When someone does not acknowledge the posts to the science that shows that he was wrong regarding the “there is no theory” item there is not much to discuss, we will not be able then to deal with the follow up item, that is to deal with the evidence that would be needed to show that the evidence from the downward radiation can be falsified.
And actually I posted already to the latest research that does confirm the basic theory, **that **is being avoided now.
(At the simplest, one just needs to show that the values found of the downward radiation and that the wavelengths that CO2 captures infrared radiation and releases it are faulty and that the downward energy reported is actually decreasing to falsify it.)
Evidently its the fault of people other than him that readers are unclear on what his specific position is. He does this repeatedly, responding to the simplest question with long posts filled with cites galore and charges of dodging, idiocy, ignorance, etc. The hilarious thing is that he professes to be so carfelu when it comes to the debate, but he fails miserably in the most fundamental aspect. Communicating his positions clearly and being willing to set a position concisely.
Fuck, one of the first thing one learns in debate class is to make sure terms are defined. The next is probably to be able to clearly state your position and to make sure your opponent does the same.
I expect now he’ll come here and claim that a desire for him to state thing clearly and concisely is “dodging” the issue, or a demonstration of ignorance about the complexity of the issue. Maybe even with a thousand more words and 25 more cites to the vaunted science. :rolleyes:
Here’s an idea. And I would think you would love all the ignorance you could fight if you did this. Not to mention, save the world. Seriously, let’s assume that everything you’ve ever written on the subject is 100% correct. Problem is, most people who do not agree with your position are unclear on what it is, and what the direct support for that base position is. So, start a new GD thread about Global Warming, Climate Change, or whatever else term you feel best. State you position in a bolded paragraph of no more than say, 50 words, with whatever supporting info and cites you’d like to supply under it. And let the ignorance slaying begin. I’d love to see that thread. I think others would, as well.
The truth is that deniers are experts on not dealing with the definitions, as pointed before we are simplifying here as AGW is demonstrated not by a single line of evidence, and even after this attempt at simplifying you come to defend the one that never wants to learn, pathetic.
Occam razor just comes to tell me that the simplest answer here is that we are seeing just JAQ from the contrarians.
And the one simplified line we are dealing with can be seen at 3:21, there are also links to the evidence so, once again the beef I have is just the willful ignorance at avoiding what was linked to many times in the past.
Here is an idea, deal with the specific line of evince here, or just acknowledge that indeed there is no good explanation to deny that evidence, then we can continue. Of course the one we need to deal with here is FXMastermind
Actually, right from the first post I was making several points, all of which actually are science based. But that wasn’t going to fly.
That is the opposite of science. It’s just a vague claim about something undefined. Gigobusters specious definition is, of course, completely wrong. This will be explained in depth in another post.
At this point it was obvious there is some serious preconception about pointless shit, but it’s the Dope, so it won’t actually matter.
Completely false of course. No sense asking for a cite, or getting sidetracked into another ball of internet poo.
The very real and scientific reason for the OP (and subsequent posts about cold and snow) was introduced here, but as it’s the Dope, it didn’t matter.
Of course by then it was a Pit thread. But that’s no reason to act like a complete fuckhole. Is it?
Oh yeah, of course it is. It’s the Dope, where a serious scientific discussion is something to avoid at all cost. Which makes it a perfect tactic to annoy the living fuck out of the ignorant.
And that is dodge #8.
Of course we do know that an ignorant like you is getting annoyed.
Although that sounds good in theory, there are a few problems with it as an approach.
First, it appears that Gigobuster has little or no actual understanding of the issues involved. I don’t think he’s capable of explaining any of the concepts involved in his own words. That’s why he relies so much on cutting and pasting from sites like Realclimate. It’s also why one can see him completely missing the point of a post.
Second, he is probably subconsciously afraid to say anything concrete lest he be contradicted by some evidence or argument he is unaware of. You see this phenomenon among TV psychics who are typically careful to make their statements vague.
Last, the entire global warming theory needs to be ambiguous as far as I can tell. It needs to be so that warmists can simultaneously claim that (1) lots of scientists agree with them; (2) there is lots of evidence supporting their position; (3) there is little evidence contradicting their position; and (4) Western countries, especially the United States, need to drastically limit CO2 emissions otherwise really bad things will happen.
So I can predict with a good deal of confidence that you will never see Gigobuster lay his cards on the table and submit to questioning about his position.
That may all be quite true, but it actually doesn’t matter. Ignorant blowhards are common online, and it sort of comes with the territory, you have to ignore them, or find a way to use their brick wall mentality as a sounding board. The biggest waste of time is the sheer volume of noise and chaff they can fire off, especially when a board allows copy and paste of walls of text.
Clearly, but you also see some hesitation from actual real science when dealing with unknowns, and especially chaotic systems like weather, and by definition, climate. We still don’t have a solid understanding on climate and general circulation, though certainly we are approaching a level of computing where we can make good guesses a week out.
But I can’t fault the general nature of predictions, in regards to weather/climate, based on historic evidence, both can pretty much do anything at will it seems, and we don’t yet understand how and why. But to latch on to this uncertainty as weakness or deliberate deception is a find line to navigate. Of course it doesn’t help that it’s all so political and effects the very foundation of our civilizations,
OK now you run right smack into the giant wall of “oh fuckme” and everything gets all complicated in ways that a supercomputer still can’t model. If I try to expound on most of that I am over my head in the deep end of the shit pool.
Again, you may be right, but it just doesn’t matter. If anyone does lay their cards on the table, somebody will take a dump on them, then steal the cards.
Returning to Global Warming, or AGW theory, or Climate Change, or Inadvertent climate modification, or Disruptive climate change or global climate change or what ever somebody uses, there is a very good reason to define terms before spewing forth fro the dubious fount of wisdom.
I didn’t think anyone would actually look at the Ngram data, which is sort of a shame, as it was vital to the later points. Certainly Marley missed it. Why does climate change so dominate global warming, up until 1989, when the two terms start sharing the world stage?
global warming or climate change ?
The mundane self proclaimed internet expert will spew ignorance like a firehose, but when you see them avoiding a simple question, while at the same time spending endless hours on long incomprehensible screeds, it’s an obvious bluff.
The real science, rather than the amateur efforts of skepticalscience, is interesting. And unlike the boring stupidity of the AGW faithful, it’s educational as well.
That’s simple enough. Why wouldn’t skepticalscience know this? Or any of the genius idiots here who quite simply never shut up? Unless they are asked a simple question? Oh right, because skepticalscience/realclimate doesn’t know it, how could they?
There’s a term you won’t find on skepticalscience
inadvertent climate modification
Of course you also won’t find “global warming theory” or “AGW theory” or “theory of global warming” either, so it’s all good.
So we see good reasons for terminology, and why it matters.
So why is “Global Warming” such common belief?
So global warming is simply the warming due to greenhouse gas changes, nothing more. And certainly it is based on physics, and the physics of greenhouse gases is known well enough that predictions based on increases are well known, at least to a scientist. Clearly not to the idiots here that I asked direct questions about it. It’s actually very simple to explain why we predict increased CO2 will cause warming, and when and how and where.
What’s in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change
Thanks NASA. But don’t worry. some fuckhead with a warming hard on will be along to explain to you why skepticalscience knows everything and why you are wrong.
But be assured, I will make fun of them.
Because attention whores don’t want anything to end. Much less be shown to be wrong in any way.
Who the fuck knows?
Plus, I think he was Googling like crazy trying to find an answer. I already knew there wasn’t one at skepticalscience, and it’s obvious he doesn’t actually know much.
Oh yeah, and it’s called trolling. I don’t even think he realizes it’s a kind of trolling. It’s probably second nature at this point, and the adrenaline rush alone means it just won’t stop. Not that there is anything wrong with getting that kick from the internet, but you got to expect somebody is going to eventually notice.
The charged emotional response, the repetition, the huge copy and paste, the hurry to any and all topics AGW pops up in, this sort of thing has been around since Usenet. Same shit, different subject.
Good points all, which indicates that our caped Reverend Save the World From Climate Change And Those Who Don’t Agree with Me On It won’t be producing that thread any time soon. But this observation needs to be highlighted:
The debate with him is often like someone trying to wrestle fog. Someone will ask a simple direct question or make a clear point and his response is everything and nothing at the same time. So, yeah, I know damn well he won’t be producing that thread. I think the notion of him stating a clear position of what he believes in less than 50 words had him hyperventilating. I asked it mainly to draw attention to the fact the he refuses to do the minimum that someone acting in good faith would do.
I gotta say, It is beyond me as to why someone who is as emotionally invested in the topic as he is would refuse to clearly present his case. It’s as if doing so is Kryptonite to him. Once he does it the fog dissipates and he ceases to be. Still, it’s beyond weird.