Here’s another tip:
Try to avoid sloppy thinking, for example referring to a “clear consensus” without being able to spell out what exactly the consensus is.
You’re right on track!
Please identify the poster I supposedly misquoted. Failing that, please admit I did no such thing and apologize.
Your choice.
You know, the fact that you bothered to generate and look at some global maps form GISS, places you in the very rare category of people who give a fuck. I mean, you actually linked to some scientific shit, which makes you awesome, and I am not being sarcastic. Using data from actual scientific sources is the high road, and combining it with sarcasm fits the thread just fine.
Looking at the summer and comparing it is something I have done multiple times, noting that the seasonal changes do not match, which is an important issue facing climate change science at the moment.
It’s no error, as I pointed out in great detail, since the NH winter land trend is the reason for “the pause”, and the other seasons are not showing cooling, it’s quite scientific.
If you compare that with the decade trend, you might see the problem for consensus theory, which states greenhouse warming is the dominant factor for current changes. If greenhouse forcing is the cause of the changes, we should not see a map like this. We should see more of a trend like this. The most increase in land temps, in winter.
Of course you have to understand the consensus science and the theory to appreciate the problem.
The thing is, even if you are right, it doesn’t matter. The opinion or motivations of one attention whore doesn’t matter in the least.
I’ll take option three, and just not bother with you. You aren’t the one in control here, proffering and limiting choices. You have no power of command.
I appreciate your request being stated politely. I’m gratified by your use of the word “Please.”
As Hal said to Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose.
It could serve the purpose of revealing something interesting about your claim.
As it happens, it just did.
FXMastermind, just so you know… I see you posting on other topics and you say things that are not always stupid. But my first thought is “Hey, there’s that science-denier idiot who debunks climate change by posting about the current weather in his driveway.”
You’ve identified yourself across this message board as a fucking indefatigable braindead moron. You’re like the girl on Tinder who included the fact that she has herpes in her dating profile.
I don’t guess you care that much, given this thread, but nevertheless I thought I would share.
You say “given this thread”. What do you think the point of this thread is?
As far as I can tell, FX’s point is that he sees people mention current local weather to bolster claims about global warming – and so he offers up mention of current local weather in hopes of provoking that response. He wants people to get in the habit of saying, with a sneer, that’s just current local weather; it’s irrelevant to proving or disproving the underlying question; the exact opposite local weather could be playing out instead, and it’d be just as irrelevant.
If you do that enough times to what he’s pointing at in this thread, you’ll do it when someone points to local weather to confirm rather than deny global warming.
That’s the hope, if I’m reading him right.
Certainly that is the obvious point of the OP, it was a one off, a quick topic creation in MPSIMS, (For general discussion: from frivolous chatter to deep thoughts; from harmless diversions to life-changing announcements.) I actually didn’t think much of it, and certainly never imagined it would become either the most awesome topic in the Pit, or the most hated topic in the Pit (depends on your worldview I think).
While the obvious point is obvious, and it certainly seems like some idiot just can’t grasp that weather isn’t climate, (that would be me in this case), the clever reader, or the masochist who reads everything (depends on your worldview) will have learned many things about weather and climate, especially if you can overlook the over the top sarcasm, and seemingly batshit crazy attitude.
No, it’s almost exactly the same stupid shit as in the OP, pointing at an anomaly and fretting over global warming. It should have been obvious (and I think it actually was to most) that there is sarcasm at play, evidenced by the Catch -22 post.
August 14 2004 Atlanta broke the record for record Tmin, 55 degrees F, but it didn’t make a single news story. Just as the record Tmin for Aug 17 2013 wasn’t mentioned int the stories linked to in the OP. They focused on the Tmax, leaving out that it was also a record breaking cold temperature. The coldest ever for the day. Just as they don’t mention the 55 degree record from 2004.
Does it actually mean anything in the larger picture? Are these cold records meaningful? (other than poking fun a global alarmists?)
That’s the other larger issue running through the topic, as well as some actual scientific ones. But fuck, it’s the Pit. You don’t get too many real thinkers here.
But to those who do, I appreciate it.
The point of this thread is to have a place for a handful of fucking morons who want to deny climate change to repeatedly and incessantly express a deluded belief that they understand science.
That’s about it.
Hmm. No, not quite; I recommend you read the rest of the post you copy-and-pasted, plus FX’s reply to it. He says “the obvious point” is one you agree with: that weather isn’t climate, that an individual local weather event is irrelevant to proving or disproving the theory – a belief which, far from being deluded, you sensibly share.
I suspect that, when it comes to understandng science, you have more common ground with him than you realize. If he doesn’t seem especially stupid to you in other threads, why not consider the possibility that would explain everything: that he’s simply telling the truth when he explicitly agrees with you in this one?
A fallacy is still a fallacy, even if it points in the direction of something that is true. And, yes, we do point it out when anyone takes a local high-temperature event as evidence for global warming. I’ve seen such observations made, and seen the rebuttal posted.
i.e. you’ve been caught in a lie and prefer not to own it.
The fact is that you accused me of a lot of things, including misquoting. When I challenged you to identify where I misquoted you, you attempted to weasel out of it, suggesting that I misquoted someone else. Now I ask you to identify this poster and of course you can’t.
Because you are a lying scumbag.
Good analogy, since Hal was a liar just like you.
Will you just please put me on your list and shut the fuck up?
Liar.
Also you’re a coward, a dildo, and your breath is bad.
You’re asking to be imaginary-ignored? To be put on the Excel Spreadsheet of Oblivion?
Super – but while that’s ample reason to disagree with his tactics, I don’t think it provides grounds for saying the guy denies climate change or otherwise has a deluded belief that he understands science. (And while you’re free to hate on him for that tactic, I’d figure he deserves half a pass due to having made explicit that he puts opposite fallacy out there to sarcastically emphasize how wrong it is to take a local weather event as evidence for global warming.)
The fucker has nearly 1500 posts in this thread. The vast majority of them are either cherry picking or arguing that it’s cold at his house. He isn’t being sarcastic and he knows dick about science.
He’s just a mouth breathing denier.
I don’t see how everything that comes before “He isn’t being sarcastic” is relevant if he’s being sarcastic, and I don’t see why you’d say “He isn’t being sarcastic” if he flatly says he’s being sarcastic.
Or he’s being sarcastic. Put him to the test; pose a question about science, and see if he gets it right.
Or that. Ask him if he denies climate change. See how he answers.
I’m pretty confident that he has had ample opportunity to make himself clear. He has been prolific in this thread and in a GD thread he started.
I’ve also watched him respond to dozens of attempts to engage him on this topic.
If he wants to write to explain how he has changed his mind, he can have at it.
I agree that he’s had ample opportunity to make himself clear. I’d merely add that he has made himself clear, in this very thread, on the exact points in question. If you ask him to copy-and-paste his remarks to that effect, possibly he’ll surprise you with swift accuracy; failing that, I’d be happy to copy-and-paste his comments on the subject.
(I mean, they’re right there; it’d be the work of a moment for me to quote him.)
Stop me if you’ve heard this one. A racist, a shit-head and a mouth-breathing climate denier walk into a thread, and vomit 2,000 repetitive posts, and then they ask why people are not engaging thoughtfully with them.