I'm sick of this Global Warming!

[magellan01]

@FXMastermind

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.

It is funny how he magically appears. Mention global warming, climate change, etc. and somehow, presto, Fogman has been summoned.

[FXMastermind]

@magellan01

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.

It’s a really bad time to be presenting a global warming case. Now if there were a bunch of Hurricanes (or even one), some serious drought, a heat wave, or at least low sea ice, you might have something to look at.

But it’s a really bad time to be claiming warming.

[brazil84]

@magellan01

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.

Thank you.

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.

I think what’s going on is that Gigobuster is (1) not very bright; but (2) extremely narcissistic in regards to his intellect. (As evidenced by his ridiculous nickname).

So he needs to fool himself into thinking he is making intelligent arguments. Of course it helps him to obtain narcissistic supply if other people regularly stroke his ego. Thus global warming is a good choice since there is a popular belief, especially among liberals, that people of superior rationality and morality take the warmist side of the debate. So that if you wander into a discussion of global warming and make a weak argument which supports the warmist point of view you have a pretty good chance of getting stroked anyway by ignorant people who, like you, are there for moral and intellectual preening.

[brazil84]

@FXMastermind

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.

Lol, I have had Gigobuster on ignore for a few years now.

Here is the dialogue which prompted it:

me: . . . the skeptics do not bear the burden of demonstrating what caused recent warming. Particularly since recent warming is within the range of natural variation, as far as anyone knows.

Gigobuster: As it was shown in a different thread, many scientists know that there is plenty of evidence that shows it was not natural, but it has not stopped you from still repeating this discredited bit.

me: I’m a little confused. Are you claiming that recent warming is NOT within the range of natural variation?

. . . .

Gigobuster: Not playing your game, you are the one that needs to stop weaseling, . . .

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.

For what it may be worth, I am happy to set forth my position and answer simple, reasonable questions about it.

[FXMastermind]

@brazil84

Lol, I have had Gigobuster on ignore for a few years now.

I did as well, but I took all the idiots off of ignore a while back.

I don’t remember why.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

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.

Says the guy that scientist posters dismiss and the moderators know when he just ranting.

It has to be noticed that I agree and I have used most of the sources you cited and I even posted on the differences of Global Warming and Climate change, you are just propping up a strawman about me. And after all what I reported before, this is really stupid. And still a dodge (#9) to the accepted start of your sorry “debate”, for starters: one reason one sees the spike in your chard on 1956 is that scientific American and others did notice what Plass did.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2010/1/carbon-dioxide-and-the-climate

A 1956 American Scientist article explores climate change; two contemporary commentaries illuminate its relevance to the present

And this takes us once again a few of your lies, we have to remember that we are here thanks to your say so that there was no theory, and we are just concentrating on the physics bit of how CO2 reacts in the atmosphere but you are still avoiding acknowledging that indeed: we have a theory, and from you we are only getting dodges that show that accepting that is for some reason now a bad thing. There is also your howler of declaring that scientists dunmped what Plass did, that remains another lie.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2010/1/carbon-dioxide-and-the-climate

Carbon Dioxide and the Climate

A 1956 American Scientist article explores climate change; two contemporary commentaries illuminate its relevance to the present

Gilbert N. Plass, James Rodger Fleming, Gavin Schmidt

2010-01PlassFA.jpgClick to Enlarge ImageIn the July 1956 issue of American Scientist a Canadian-born physicist resurrected a theory of climatic change that had languished since the heady last decade of the 1800s when it was championed by the likes of Svante Arrhenius and T. C. Chamberlain. Plass explained in detail the sources and sinks for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and offered estimates of its influence on global average temperature and even ocean acidity. For this and other articles, Plass is often referred to as the father of modern greenhouse-gas theory.

At the conclusion of the full original text, James Fleming offers perspective on the significance of Plass’s work, and Gavin Schmidt reflects on how the science holds up more than 50 years later.

This in the end also shows how dumb is to refer to me as spewing nonsense and at the same time agree with the brazil nut that I just cut and paste (like if it was not good to link to the science), as I pointed before an educated opinion is the best one, but it is really a demonstration of the contradictory nature of you guys when you can believe those 2 things at the same time. The dumb statement on this post here is telling:

[QUOTE=FXMastermind]

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.
[/QUOTE]

No it is not you scare crow straw man-er, as I said before I want to make clear that you acknowledge already that there was/is a theory, and that the evidence is there. What you posted here was very likely going to follow from me when you finally acknowledged that.

But you jumped the gun, and you are so dumb for 2 reasons, the first was to assume that I never did in the past tell many in this message board about how “Climate Change” was politicized by the Republicans and the history of the terms and their differences. The second was to assume that then it would be humiliating to me for you to show grandma how to suck eggs.

Dumb, dumb, dumb after I agreed with your parameters that indeed there was/is a theory (in one of many lines of inquire on this issue)

I told you what we were doing, concentrating first on the early/current theory of Plass and the confirmations of it. Other follow ups were under that condition, but if you want to show others that you prefer to demonstrate that you rely on straw men and think teaching grandma to suck eggs will make you look intelligent in front of others be my guest.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

It is funny how he magically appears. Mention global warming, climate change, etc. and somehow, presto, Fogman has been summoned.

No mystery, many posters in the message board tell me to look at the latest dumb copy passte from denier sources. I advice them to use the resources already available, and it has to be pointed here that even conservative scientists like Barry Bickmore recommend the “Skeptical Science” because it is a source of cataloged information on the already debunked denial points.

The disparaging coming from FXMastermind is just a demonstration of a lack of meta cognition from him. You have to be aware first of what you do not know and what the experts are reporting. The idiotic thing FX did in his recent post was to declare that Skeptical Science are idiots for:

‘not knowing that’ “To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases”

Only that it is a perfect example of ignorance in action, it was known already (and it was not relevant to say it until we had dealt with the science behind why CO2 is warming the atmosphere and the evidence why it is mostly the man made one that is doing so.) And several articles deal with that weirdly specific line that is weirdly expected to show that “skeptical science” does not know. :rolleyes:

Here is an example of what they reported before:

Why did climate cool in the mid-20th Century?

Mid-century cooling was primarily anthropogenic

To sum up, anthropogenic sulfur emissions appear to be the main cause of the mid-century cooling. These emissions decreased the mean global surface temperature by approximately 0.5°C during this period, while anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions caused a warming of approximately 0.4°C. Therefore, even though greenhouse gas emissions continued to have a warming effect during this period, it was more than offset (hidden) by anthropogenic aerosol emissions, until those emissions were brought under control by government intervention while greenhouse gas emissions continued to increase unabated. In other words, the mid-century cooling is actually an expected result based on our current understanding of climate science, and is successfully hindcasted by climate models (Meehl 2004).

The articles in general do refer to the average temperatures, their change and the humans being more responsible for the current warming.

This is a copy paste tactic from creationists that claim that scientists or science based sources are not using specific wordings and so we should declare a source or the science invalid, it does not work that way and it only shows the ones proposing that as attempting to limit the information that comes to their groupies. The intention is clear, to poison the well. To defend their own ignorance.

[GIGObuster]

As for the brazil nut “Are you claiming that recent warming is NOT within the range of natural variation?” It was clear from the context that yes, it was not within the range of natural variation. And many posters and even moderators were not amused by his “debating” methods.

That was just an element of the old JAQ maneuver, pretend to be naive when it is not only the words of a poster but cites that he is ignoring on purpose.

[FXMastermind]

Did anyone else bother to read the wall of text? Let me know if it actually said anything new or interesting.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Did anyone else bother to read the wall of text? Let me know if it actually said anything new or interesting.

TLDN version: You are a liar, and attempted to pass a “teach grandma to suck eggs” as a “smart” point to make that made you look stupid.

And you only demonstrated that you are only a JAQoff all trades in avoiding acknowledging the basics of a theory that you lied to all others that it did not exist. The point that was missed is that if there is anything you should care about is to agree that making declarations as “there is no theory” should be dropped in the future, or agree that it is bad to lie when declaring that people like me do not even respond to a simple inquiry (“yes, yes, yes”).

That, and many other straw men from you are just a very good way to be discredited in the SDMB.

[FXMastermind]

@brazil84

For what it may be worth, I am happy to set forth my position and answer simple, reasonable questions about it.

That sounds reasonable. I have never had trouble communicating. You do know that for the likes of Gigo it will be, as the article on the latest IPCC report (leaked hahaha)

“But the facts do not take away from the reality”

Haha OK that was a terrible thing to do. I left out part of the claim. Full disclosure below.

The climate has not been warming over the past 15 years at rates predicted earlier, the latest report of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to be released September end, is going to say.

The report is also going to accept that carbon dioxide gas concentration in atmosphere may not be as potent in causing global temperature increases as was believed earlier. The Hindu accessed the report’s Summary for Policy Makers — a precise guide for political leaders and negotiators on what the latest science of climate change is indicating.

The report says: “The rate of warming over the past 15 years (from 1998-2012) at 0.05 degree Celsius per decade is smaller than the trend over the longer period 1951-2012 which stands at 0.12 degree Celsius per decade.” This means that in the last 15 years, the rate of warming has been 40% slower than in the period 1951-2012.

But the facts do not take away from the reality of anthropogenic climate change. They instead suggest that the understanding of the emissions-temperatures-nature linkages is being revised and that the level of urgency or seriousness of the issue is being revisited by science as well as policymakers.

Earth is warming up but not as rapidly as predicted

I left that one out of the list
anthropogenic climate change

In any case, that is an interesting report on the “leaked” IPCC report.

[FXMastermind]

The science reproduced in the IPCC reports is the latest research gathered over the past few years by a large panel of scientists. The IPCC had earlier come in for criticism for letting less than well established facts creep in and the climate sceptics have always blamed it for pushing the reports beyond legitimate limits and ignoring contrary scientific signals. The new report does take a more ‘moderate’ view on some impacts and scientific facts related to science but continues to be unequivocal, and in fact more confident, that global warming is hastening even though there might be some vagueness about how the warming will alter natural processes, especially at regional and local levels.

Earth is warming up but not as rapidly as predicted

" for letting less than well established facts creep in"

This guy is a riot of newspeak

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

That sounds reasonable. I have never had trouble communicating. You do know that for the likes of Gigo it will be, as the article on the latest IPCC report (leaked hahaha)

“But the facts do not take away from the reality”

Haha OK that was a terrible thing to do. I left out part of the claim. Full disclosure below.

Earth is warming up but not as rapidly as predicted - The Hindu

I left that one out of the list
anthropogenic climate change

In any case, that is an interesting report on the “leaked” IPCC report.

And now you claim that I never referred to AGW, in any case, that is a non scientific opinion that is missing what the report (that also others point out is the leaked one) also points to the increases mostly going to the sea for the time being.

Global Warming Includes Oceans Too - and Continues to Rise Fast

Slow-down in global surface temperature increases and flawed emphasis on land surface temperatures, at expense of ocean temperatures, explored in ‘This is Not Cool’ video. They call it ‘global’ warming for a reason.

They don’t call it “land-surface warming,” and they don’t call it “oceans-only warming.”

It’s called “global warming” for a reason, and one of the principal reasons is that climate change takes into account not only the approximately 29 percent of the Earth’s surface that consists of land, our continents, but also the 71 percent comprised of oceans.

In this month”s “This is Not Cool” video debriefing, independent videographer and climate analyst Peter Sinclair, of Midland, MI, presents and interviews an all-star cast of climate scientists helping tell what one — Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory — describes as “an internally physically consistent story” based on a wide body of scientific evidence on climate change.

As Columbia University scientist James Hansen explains in the video, global temperatures over the past decade-plus have increased about 1/10th of a degree, versus the 2/10ths of a degree increase in the previous decade. “But that’s just natural variability. There’s no reason to be surprised by that at all.”

Such “hiatus periods” have occurred in the past and are expected to again in the future, the National Center for Atmospheric Research’s Jerry Meehl explains. The increased heat, he says, is going into the ocean, which NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientist Josh Willis calls “our most accurate thermometer for measuring climate change.”

Scientists from a diverse collection of academic and government research institutions explain in Sinclair’s video that, NASA/JPL’s Willis says, sea-level rise over the past 20 years has shown an “incredibly steady background trend” that can be explained only by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. Several point out that more than 90 percent of increasing global heat resulting from GHGs is taken-in by the oceans, and rising ocean temperatures — and resulting sea-level rise, particularly in the deepest ocean depths — are testimony to that continued warming.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Earth is warming up but not as rapidly as predicted - The Hindu

" for letting less than well established facts creep in"

This guy is a riot of newspeak

It continues with:

“and the climate sceptics have always blamed it for pushing the reports beyond legitimate limits and ignoring contrary scientific signals”.

One of the less than well established facts was the acceleration of the loss of ice in the north pole and Greenland.

This was known for awhile, but it was the conservative nature of the IPCC that only added the expected sea rise from regular melting to their recommendations, in the end I would agree with the policy recommendations, when you are confronted with less supported contrarian scientific signals (have you forgotten about “skeptic” Spencer and his error filled models?) the most responsible thing is to basically ignore it until more evidence comes along.

In the case of Ice loss the acceleration has gotten more evidence since the previous report that punted on the issue. And hence, as the leaks report, ocean rise is more certain to come and faster. In the case of the contrarian evidence, the contrary signals are less likely or showed to be wrong.

Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen

Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, has released a scientific paper (Dessler 2011) that looks at the claims made by two of a small group of “skeptic” climate scientists who regular SkS readers will be familiar with: Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen. Both were co-authors on peer-reviewed papers released this year (Spencer & Braswell [2011] & Lindzen & Choi [2011]) which, once again, sought to overturn the orthodox view of climate. Dessler (2011) finds that the conclusions of these two papers are unsupported by observational data.

[FXMastermind]

@brazil84

So he needs to fool himself into thinking he is making intelligent arguments. Of course it helps him to obtain narcissistic supply if other people regularly stroke his ego. .

Nah, I’m betting it’s more like a religious fanatic, the more opposition the more he feels holy and righteous. Nothing will get through that sort of mindset.

@GIGObuster

And hence, as the leaks report, ocean rice is more certain to come and faster. ]

He also can’t write for shit.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Nah, I’m betting it’s more like a religious fanatic, the more opposition the more he feels holy and righteous. Nothing will get through that sort of mindset.

He also can’t write for shit.

I corrected that already, keep grasping at straws you liar. And you remain only an expert clown that can only “teach grandma to suck eggs”, acknowledge that you were wrong on the theory not existing and the data that shows that indeed it was confirmed, and that Plass was not dismissed as you claimed.

[GIGObuster]

BTW: There is only 5 minutes to edit so you just showed that you are willing to mislead others, you had time to see that I did correct it already before you posted that here.

Incidentally you are just ignoring that I also admitted before that my grammar is a crime against nature as English is my second language. But posters who are teachers have told me that I do good, thank you very much. And tell me that many “native” Americans are worse so I should fell better.

Finally just a friendly heads up, many posters here do see your attempt at being a “Grammar Nazi” to be very uncalled for in the SDMB when it is used to avoid dealing with the cites or arguments.

[FXMastermind]

Well if English is your second language then you are doing just fine. Not with your arguments, but with the language.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Well if English is your second language then you are doing just fine. Not with your arguments, but with the language.

So he is human after all, :).

Still how can you say that the arguments are bad when in reality you do not want to deal with them?

As it seems that you are not wanting to touch the issues that I granted before to you, then I see not much of point lefty there other that to report to others how full of projection you are.

Going forward, as you are doing while refusing to acknowledge your misrepresentations, here you have to explain why a misunderstood leak from the IPCC is more valid than the more supported item that ocean rise is more likely and faster. So we still have to do something about our emissions, now, soon and on a big scale.

[FXMastermind]

@GIGObuster

here you have to explain why a misunderstood leak from the IPCC is more valid than the more supported item that ocean rise is more likely and faster.

There is an example of what people are trying to tell you, about your ‘style’ or method of speaking. It sucks. It does not work in any way.

The words “you have to explain why a misunderstood leak” just don’t mean anything. It’s almost impossible to parse the meaning, and trying to tell other people they have to do something, it will get you nowhere.

I think you are demanding that I, God knows why, must explain something to you. Except it’s obvious that isn’t what you really want at all. It’s a confusing and unrewarding way to approach things.