Says the one that has been called to the mat by even moderators here.
OK, wanted to be more diplomatic, but in reality it was a misleading point to affirm that the “facts” are inconvenient for the IPCC or climate science.
The “facts” you are referring to are a setup to mislead others, As pointed before, the latest evidence shows that more heat is going to the oceans right now, and there is no good evidence that the cycles that are driving that will remain forever that way.
Once again the point stands, as the Hindu times opinion reports, they are only saying that there are critics out there, but their research and contrary information is not looked at or accepted by the IPCC for obvious and already posted reasons.
I used to think the problem was that Gigobuster is not a native speaker of English, but now I think it’s simply that his thinking is too muddled for him to formulate a coherent idea about what he is trying to say.
For example, in the dialogue I quoted above, he could have responded by saying something like “No, I agree that temperatures are within the range of natural variation, but I think mankind is playing a role because of reason X.”
Or he could have said “Yes, I believe that temperatures are outside the range of natural variation and I believe so because of reason Y.”
But instead, he did not answer at all. I believe it’s not his lack of English ability, it’s just that he is too stupid to understand the distinctions in play.
Just make your point. Speak clearly, and be direct. Don’t waste words or make things complicated.
For example, “The 'facts” you are referring to are a setup to mislead others". That doesn’t tell anyone anything. What facts? What is misleading about them? Why do you think they are a “setup”? What do you even mean by “setup?”. Who is being misled? Why?
Your style is obtuse, it repulses people. It isn’t effective at all.
Despite my gruff exterior, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. It might be a language barrier, a cultural problem, or maybe the internet just has eaten a hole into his brain.
In any case, just pretend you are talking to a group of people. Putting up a wall of quoted text is the equivalent of showing vacation slides to people that already don’t like you.
Nah, it only repulses people that want to remain ignorant.
Evidence: feedback from others, even scientists in the SDMB.
And I already said it clearly, you are a willful ignorant, that last bit of the “facts” shows that. So it is important for **you **to be obtuse.
What I said was: “the latest evidence shows that more heat is going to the oceans right now, and there is no good evidence that the cycles that are driving that will remain forever that way.”
Indeed “the facts [in that specific surface temperature item] do not take away from the reality” of AGW.
The problem was that the “facts” there are only limited to surface temperatures by the false skeptics, looking at the big picture demonstrates that it is misleading to claim that there are inconvenient facts that the IPCC should take into account; as posted before, no, by general rule the contrarian information and research does not deserve to be taken into account.
And more ignorance of where I come from. I do not post much for people like you but for people that want to learn, and many of the ones that come to this forum are coming for that reason. Indeed, you should know your audience and it is more likely that many others are learning what you are avoiding and you will continue to repeat the ignorance that you kept by avoiding reading.
Not likely that the ones who learned more will be amused by your repetition of debunked or misleading information.
I prefer the feedback from people with more expertise than yours. And as I already had it, even this week via PM I already know who is making a difference.
So, that “facts” bit was dumb, mostly because you made a very general assumption, if you want to clarify you are welcome to explain what facts you are referring to if they are not the ones I pointed out. And I already linked before to a lot of sources, including “Skeptical Science” about anthropogenic climate change.
The GigoGish gallop probably works because most intelligent people simply give up in the face of such a massive wash of ignorance and impossible stupidity. Responding in any way just releases a worse flood of nonsensical bullshit. It’s a never ending fountain of stupid, who wants to face a flood of shit, let loose from a site that has perfected the art of bullshitting?
I asked for the definition of AGW (or any other name for it), or the page on SS about it, for a very good reason. It doesn’t exist. Not only is there no entry for AGW theory, **AGW **doesn’t have an entry either. That’s right, the glossary for skepticalscience (SS) has no entry at all.
According to SS, neither does the IPCC!
The entire2007 IPCC report has no definition for AGW, or AGW theory. Source = Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.
(Anyone can easily check the SS site and prove me wrong)
SS has no entry for The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change. There are no entries/definitions for global warming theory, theory of global warming, anthropogenic climate change, or even anthropogenic global warming. Even anthropogenic has no definition!! Neither does global warming. (I am not making this up)
Remember, this is the site Gigobuster uses all the time, as a scientific source. There is no definition of “climate change”. I am not kidding. The website skepticalscience.com (SS) does not have a definition of either global warming or climate change.
A search fro climate change will show Abrupt climate change
A search for global warming will show GWP
In fact, most of the scientific terms used by climate scientists will not be in the SS glossary. Like “atmospheric greenhouse effect”. That isn’t in the glossary.
So any attempt to say you linked to something on SS is utter bullshit.
No, it’s actually just the simple truth. There is no SS page on “AGW theory”, or “theory of global warming”, or “Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change” or “greenhouse gas theory” or any other phrase like this.
It’s exactly why you haven’t linked to one. Ever.
You certainly haven’t linked to one in this thread. It’s a testament to how little anyone cares about what you type, that nobody has pointed this out to you. detractors or supporters.
Noe here is your big chance to educate your readers, and prove me so terribly wrong. just link to the skepticalscience page that explains what is meant by AGW theory. (or any other name for it)
It doesn’t exist of course.
Before you object to the use of an exact search term, realize they work quite well there.
So here we have this pseudo-scientific blog used as source, all the time. And it doesn’t have the basic climate foundation. It doesn’t even define the terms.
It’s obviously far worse than that. He is complete denial about how his method of being an insulting tool comes across. And on any board that had a “no spamming” rule he would be banned from spamming a link to the SS in pretty much every post. When I started askinghim pointed questions here, I knew that the SS had no page he could go to, which is why he couldn’t just answer the questions. Just like he still hasn’t been able to answer what the predictions are. It’s not that he is avoiding an honest answer, he can’t find one.
Which is hilarious since his “enemies” (in his own mind) can answer the questions with out even doing a Google search. If you don’t know the very basics about something, then arguing over it is extremely dumb.
Of course this is the internet, and pseudo-scientific sites like the SS are akin to religious gatherings of the stupid. Who on one hand will decry any source of knowledge that isn’t “peer reviewed”, while not realizing that the SS site isn’t peer reviewed, or written by climate experts, or even Meteorologists, Geophysicist, or even people with a Doctorate in something. In fact, the driving force behind the site is a Bible thumping Christian with no weather education, a self proclaimed expert with zero climate expertise.
In short, an Internet expert with no editor, no peer review, and no accountability. It’s no wonder half educatedf self proclaimed experts love it. It even has an app to input posts into, and it spits out a link for you, no need to even think.
Even a quick look at the pseudo-science it promotes makes you realize why nobody takes it seriously, it’s the poster child of self proclaimed expertise. In fact, the accolades about it were written by the site. It’s a beautiful thing.
I’m not declaring it, I am clearly showing it. Most people already know SS is a shit site for science. I’m just making you aware of it, in a way you can’t weasel out of.
(of course he can, he is as slippery as a TV preacher)
No, it’s somebody holding your feet to the fire. No matter how much you try and twist and turn, you just can’t use skepticalscience (SS) to argue what I am clearly pointing out.
Now of course you won’t answer, but try and spin off a different line of crap.
I think you may have trouble grasping some American mannerisms. Also sarcasm, satire and irony are difficult concepts. Especially online.
If I say “Global warming isn’t a theory, it’s a fact”, that is satire. It’s ironic, and somebody reading it will either get it, or they won’t. Some people might think I’m serious, and quite rightly call me a dumbass.
Others might agree with the statement.
A few will realize it’s satire, and they might giggle like a schoolgirl. Not many. maybe just one person.
Then there is sarcasm, where you don’t actually mean what you say, and this is obvious to an intelligent person. Because it would be ludicrous if I actually meant it.
Like if I said “Obviously I’m not smart enough to understand Gigobusters brilliance”. It’s not a lie, it’s a manner of speaking that intelligent people pick up on, they get that it’s sarcastic. I don’t actually mean that at all. In fact, it probably means the direct opposite, that Gigobuster is too dense to grasp what I said.
Now the terminally stupid can’t grasp sarcasm, irony or satire, which is part of the fun of using it. The smart people laugh, smirk or rage, but the truly stupid consider it “lies!” or “trolling!”, because they don’t fully understand language, culture or how people behave.
They are quite literal in reading other people, though often they can’t see themselves at all. This is part of the delicious fun of using satire. Sometimes the target actually can’t understand what is happening, while the crowd sort of guffaws and rolls eyes.
Or they go and gather pitchforks and torches, maybe some rope.
It depends on the crowd.
Online it’s more of a desperate repeated use of the “report post” button, with the hope a Mod will come along and dispense justice. Then the crowd can go back to posting to each other and be happy the bad ideas are no longer tolerated by a free society.
Sheldon, that was satire. OK? He didn’t really mean exactly what he said. I know, it’s a hard concept.
Yeah, but as pointed out, others (and me) are learning, really this subject is very complex but there is value also on pointing out who is trolling (FX is trolling indeed, concerned and classic varieties)
As we can see from his last replies, he is showing to be also stupid enough to not notice past (and current) history, he really does think that his language attack is meaningful when many others already reported that they do understand the evidence and that FX is trolling and on top of that he is not smart enough to get the gist of what someone is saying.
Worse, even if it was the whole truth that I can not make myself understood, the cites then are the ones that should be read (the main point on an anonymous message board and when there is a mountain of evidence on a subject) and my comments can be ignored if that is the case, so far it is clear that many do understand. And many do understand that FX does not even read nor the cites are acknowledged.
As many others that I respect and even scientist posters tell me, they do understand why the cite was made and why it is appropriate, so I prefer to have problems with my grammar rather than being a dumb denialist troll.
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
Of course this is the internet, and pseudo-scientific sites like the SS are akin to religious gatherings of the stupid.
[/QUOTE]
Both Richard Alley and Barry Bickmore are aware that Skeptical Science is a resource, it is a tool to catalogue what was already shown to be a myth coming from the deniers.
When real scientists that were skeptics, remain Republican and conservative then recommend a source like Skeptical Science one can notice that it is beyond stupid to call it a pseudo science site.
Look to the right, to his links.
As pointed before, and going meta, the stupid shows when we consult sites that do make it a business to debunk pseudo science, even there the answer is clear, the pseudoscience comes from the deniers.
:rolleyes: Nobody cares about what you think, ok? Global warming has been proven by scientists, real ones, not ones funded by Exxon-Mobil. It has happened, is continuing to happen, and will happen unless we take steps to do reverse it. Nobody’s impressed by your attempt at this vague shit and pretend-dumbfuckery but it is interesting to see the length someone will go to shit on the earth and make it uninhabitable for their descendants
If I was going to run a blog and claim it was all about science, I would make sure scientific terms were defined. The glossary on SS is an abomination.
That and the fact he simply doesn’t have a single page explaining the basics of either global warming or climate change.
That has nothing to do with my direct and easy to understand points.
I suspected you didn’t know the first thing about AGW, global warming or climate change. It has become clear you do not. Since you depend on SS or other idiot blogs, you have no where to to turn to when somebody asks you a direct question.
Like what is “global warming theory”? It’s used once on the beginners page at SS. Once.
So quite naturally one would expect a hotlink on that, but of course, no. Not anywhere on the site will you find a hotlink like that.
You can use the search box, and the glossary search, and you will not find it defined, explained, or the difference between global warming and climate change explained.
It’s why Gigo ( and everybody else) doesn’t just link to it. Or explain it here.
Not the simplistic “CO2 slows the heat exchange rate of the earth’s atmosphere, increasing CO2 levels, from human activities, is leading to an increase in global temperatures”, which is about as simple as you can make it.
If you ask SS, you get ‘global warming theory’ was not found in the dictionary of terms.