Anyway, it’s very unlikely that Stamos is enough of an idiot that he can’t understand why his argument is flawed. More likely what happened is that it popped into his head and the posted it without giving it a lot of thought and now he is too proud to just concede that his argument is wrong.
As they say, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
And you are nothing if not consistent.
Yes.
Anthropogenic (even if only partially) global warming doesn’t imply necessary action. On the other hand, some of the actions being suggested have additional supporting rationale.
I’m a big believer in “think globally and act locally” and have no interest in trying to persuade those that “think locally and act (or choose not to act) globally.”
Apparently you are not a big believer in being forthright about your position. Or telling the truth about other peoples’ positions.
You accused me of setting up a strawman and yet you are unable to state where I misrepresented your position. I asked you a few simple reasonable questions about your position and you completely ignored them.
I have no interest in engaging with people who lie about my position or who hide their own position behind a cloak of ambiguity. Welcome to my shit list.
Goodbye, liar.
“Checkmate,” squealed little brazil84 as he forced a bishop into one rhinorrheal nostril.
Welcome to the goddamn internet, where an honest discussion is rare, and facts don’t matter
“It’s been so much colder this summer,” said Susan Vartholomatos, 51, who broke out her bikini for a beach day Friday afternoon. “In the morning, when I go out to my terrace, I need a sweatshirt.”
Vartholomatos said she wishes it was hotter, adding “I’d take heat and humidity over snow any day.”
“Chilly Quinquagenarian Debunks Global Warming,” reports FXMastermind, cub reporter for The Onion.
I actually prefer online discussions since there is a good record of what people said. That makes it easier to shine a spotlight on the dishonesty of folks like alienvessels.
Well there’s the problem right there. It simply DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL, in any possible way, what an anonymous fuckhead on the internet writes. With no evidence, no logic, no reason and no skepticism, nothing written matters in any way.
There is a huge ironic, and incredibly funny backstory to this topic. Not that most people give the slightest of shits.
It was started in the mundane pointless shit I must share even when I know not a single fuck will be given sub forum. It was going to be about actual science, hard nosed fucking science, which directly relates to the Chicago area, since Chicago is within what climate science humorously calls “the warming hole”, which is actually a “it hasn’t warmed at all” hole, with the added bonus of “the goddamn winters are cooling hole”, which of course relates to one of my favorite subjects.
You can find 126 papers online actually directly mentioning, or all about, the warming hole. There are 6324 papers you won’t find, because a multitude of papers/studies/research don’t call it a hole.
It’s interesting as fuck science, but goddamn if we didn’t see that actual science is the last fucking thing to discuss online. Be it the denial of global warming theory, the denial of the cooling trends, the denial of the lack of warming, the denial that there are vast uncertainties involving climate change, the mystery of where 55% of our carbon emissions went, or whatever, anything weather or climate related is the last thing you will find people interested in.
If it’s not some weeping and handwringing over the doom coming, or how bad the goddamn global warming has become, or how a herd of Walrus have never ever crowded a shore before, and it’s your goddamn fault a baby walrus was trampled, then forget about it.
It makes me sick.
Mommy: brazil84, Eat your SpaghettiOs.
brazil84: why is it necessary for me to eat my SpaghettiOs?
Mommy: so you’ll grow up big and strong. Have a bite.
brazil84: so it is your contention that consumption of SpaghettiOs is fundamentally necessary for human growth?
Mommy: <sigh>
brazil84: Is it fair to say that in your opinion, if someone does not eat SpaghettiOs, that person will not grow big and strong? And that if I provided an example of someone who grew big and strong without having eaten SpaghettiOs, it would disprove your claim? I want to be sure I understand your position.
Mommy: honey, I am not going to do this with you again. If you don’t eat, we’re going to be late for daycare. Eat.
brazil84: are you now saying that it is impossible for us not to be late for day care unless I eat SpaghettiOs? And if there were evidence that on several occasions in the past month alone, we arrived on time for day care even though I had eaten Froot Loops and not SpaghettiOs beforehand, would you admit that you were wrong?
Mommy: stop it. Now.
**brazil84: **tell me if this is a fair summary of your position. If I do not eat this bowl of SpaghettiOs,
[ol]
[li]I will never grow into normal adulthood, and[/li]
[li]We will be late for day care, independent of how early we leave, how fast you drive, which route you take, what the traffic conditions are, and so forth?[/li][/ol]
Is that correct?
Mommy: eat your food!
brazil84: you have failed to address my questions, so I will ask once more: why is it necessary for me to eat these SpaghettiOs?
Mommy: BECAUSE I’M YOUR MOTHER AND I SAID SO!
**
brazil:** lol, now you’re waffling. I’ve asked you very simple questions and you’ve failed to answer them or state your position clearly. I do not engage with people who refuse to debate in good faith. Goodbye, liar.
Mommy: (sotto voce) God, why didn’t I abort?
What’s so hard to understand about “it’s warming and humans are contributing?”
It’s that abstract thing, right?
That’s the best thing I’ve read on the intarwab in months.
You really need to get out more.
How is going out, going to get me more internet exposure?
Go out, as in quit hanging out in the Pit.
Well you could say the same thing about the sort of oral discussions which take place at social gatherings. But the “fuckheads” have a few advantages in such discussions: First, it’s easier for them to strawman, weasel, and lie since there isn’t solid proof of what they said earlier; second it’s easier for them to make up facts a la septimus since the argument is moving fast so there is much less time to consult references; and third, if all else fails, it’s easier for them to simply shout down a good point rather than actually responding to it.
Well of course. If you respond to a scientific discussion, you risk getting in over your head. Most people online simply don’t spend much time doing any study, any real learning, but are sort of ditto heads, repeating whatever party line they have aligned themselves with.
Thinking requires effort, and if you aren’t on the ball, I mean really up to speed on a complex subject, you will find yourself drowning, so you can’t blame some ignorant fuckhead for repeating something they heard, rather than actually lifting a finger to do some actual work, to find something out.
For example, we just observed the second earliest ever recorded snow in Peoria.
Rockford as well, only time it snowed earlier was Oct 3 1951. Does it mean anything from a climate point of view? Not by itself. But what of the trends? Is there any long term trend observed? And if so, does it have anything to do with a global change?
These are really hard fucking questions btw. Not the trends, that is childs play to find. But what it means, the connections to CO2 forcing, to volcanoes, to solar changes, to particulates and the hydrological cycle, is it relevant?
Is there measuring issues? Just a simple question about an early snow flurry.snowfall, leads to complex and politically charged issues.
No, I can’t blame your average fuckhead for spewing commentary fit for the sewer. Of course I can still make fun of them, but that’s a character flaw.
More anecdotes.
You’re never going to arrive at science.