I have yet to see anyone in this thread deny climate change.
And while I’m not a fan of shitheads in general – or racists in particular – I’d engage thoughtfully with them, because it beats the alternative.
It’s ironic that somebody would lie in order to argue a case that somebody else is doing something.
I’ve never argued it’s cold in my region, but after I read that I checked, and strange as it may seem, the trend is now cooling for winter, but it wasn’t when I started the topic. Shows how trends are subject to the start and end dates. 1984-2013 winter, slight warming, but now the 30 year trend is slight cooling, something I didn’t know.
The annual trend is certainly warming for Florida, all regions, and it is from spring and summer warming, which I didn’t expect to find. This matches most other regions that show a flat or cooling trend. But what really surprised me is the 30 year trend for fall (Sep-Nov) shows drastic cooling for Florida. What is causing that?
The annual still shows warming, as spring and summer warming is stronger than the fall/winter cooling trend. What would cause such an asymmetric change? Is there any past periods that show this sort of change?
How much is natural cycles, and how much is human influence? How much is adjustments to measurements? What is actually going on? That is the question any sane person wants the answer to.
Not spin, not some agenda, not some story that doesn’t match the data. The theory or the measurements are surely wrong. But which is it?
That isn’t how most of us take FXMastermind’s OP and subsequent posts. They aren’t ironic inversions of a flawed idea: they are embodiments of the flawed idea. He cites a very cold winter in one part of North America, and then sneers, “I’m so tired of this Global Warming.” There really isn’t any other way to take this than that he considers a local cold snap to falsify the notion that the earth is getting warmer.
Another serious problem is that he had re-defined the term “Global Warming” to mean something other than “Yeah, the earth is getting warmer.” He operates out of his own private lexicon, and this makes communication much more difficult.
We did. He didn’t. He has been wholly evasive, and refuses to answer simple questions. Instead, he blows up entire walls of text, with extensive quotes…some of which have actually contradicted what he said when introducing them.
We don’t have a working model of communication with him. This has led even Colibri – far from an hysterical foam-at-the-mouth extremist – to scorn him as a troll.
I respect your efforts to search for moderation and communication here, but, if you will ask him those simple questions yourself, I am sorry to have to predict that you will not succeed in establishing a channel of real communication. But, for goodness’ sake, try it. It’s not my place to condemn what he might say in advance of his actual responses. All I can say is that we have tried it, and not succeeded.
We did. He didn’t. He has been wholly evasive, and refuses to answer simple questions. Instead, he blows up entire walls of text, with extensive quotes…some of which have actually contradicted what he said when introducing them.
We don’t have a working model of communication with him. This has led even Colibri – far from an hysterical foam-at-the-mouth extremist – to scorn him as a troll.
I respect your efforts to search for moderation and communication here, but, if you will ask him those simple questions yourself, I am sorry to have to predict that you will not succeed in establishing a channel of real communication. But, for goodness’ sake, try it.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough.
FX, do you deny climate change?
[QUOTE=Trinopus]
There really isn’t any other way to take this than that he considers a local cold snap to falsify the notion that the earth is getting warmer.
[/QUOTE]
FX, do you consider a local cold snap to falsify the notion that the earth is getting warmer?
The Other Waldo Pepper is being a completely disingenuous prick, of course. He’s posted 50 times to this thread - he knows what’s been posted. He also has long established himself in denial. To come in batting his eyelashes and pretending to serve as some kind of independent go-between?
Yeah, nobody’s buying what you’re selling.
To be absolutely and totally honest…I had no memory of his having posted before in this thread. (Well, damn, it’s been a long one!)
So, please take my posts to him as a “reboot” and a completely de novo response, exactly as I would have responded to someone coming in for the very first time.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see what responses he gets to his direct questions.
Lol, it must really hurt your precious fee-fees to be caught in a lie. But I think I’m going to call you “Hal” from now on. After the fictional computer that destroyed a mission rather than admit it had made a mistake.
Lol, nice ad homenim. By the way, you are obese aren’t you?
Well first they would need to define the phrase “climate change.” I have yet to see any warmistas in this thread do so.
Especially not the Scottish ones!
Of course not, it’s an absurd notion to deny climate change. Using the defintion from the EPA gloassary
During the 1950s great advances in coverage allowed for the first time an understanding of large scale changes, and the concept of global changes we could measure became a real possibility. The drastic cooling that led to the “coming ice age” period was due to a global measurement from balloons and radiosondes, there was knowledge of the large scale changes, and a way to measure them. This is documented in many papers, including the previously linked report from 1974, in which global cooling was a real concern. Congress demanded a report from the top scientists, and a lot of money was earmarked for better measurements and records of climate.
Of course not, As I said, the only thing more ridiculous sounding than that, would be to claim a local cold winter was evidence that the planet was warming.
But, and this is the part that can be confusing, I think Cohen (and others) may be on to something, based on the predictive power of his theory. The connection between the Siberian snow, and the NH pattern later in winter, is starting to look solid. It’s not perfect, as Cohen will tell you, but it’s a theory that has strong evidence.
The early theories that predicted this sort of behavior, which were dismissed due to the warming of the 80s and 90s, used the same sort of dynamic feedback from a warming arctic, to predict increased snow and cold, from a warming arctic. So it’s not actually crazy to say arctic warming can cause colder winters, with much more snow.
The big problem with this, is of course the unexpected solar decrease, which can’t be just dismissed. It’s certainly not settled what is causing the current changes, it’s not even settled what those changes are. None of this means we shouldn’t be decreasing the awful pollution from coal and oil, which is a travesty. China with it’s horrific air pollution, India and Indonesia with the brown cloud of soot, dirty old fashioned burning, it’s horrible. The massive injection of CO2, soot and water vapor from stratospheric air traffic, especially over the poles. There is no way that isn’t causing changes to the system.
Same for particulates, soot especially, and deforestation. It’s a massive fuck over of the natural world.
The theory that an increase in CO2 from fossil fuels will cause nothing but warming, that is only part of the puzzle. It’s not the only factor, and it’s not certain what the result will be. It’s certainly not as simple as some people try to make it.
Well, it’s true that I know what’s been posted; that’s why I could’ve posted existing quotes from FX to answer those questions. But that’s hardly disingenuous; I just got through saying I’d be happy to copy-and-paste his comments on the subject, adding it’d be the work of a moment for me to quote him.
But instead, Trinopus suggested I ask him myself, with a “for goodness’ sake, try it.” So I shrugged and did that instead, with direct questions.
So how is that disingenuous? Heck, how much more ingenuous could it get?
It’s easy to sling that accusation. It’s just as easy for me to say you’re wrong. Which of us is right? Well, you could do as Trinopus suggested: put a direct question or two to me; everyone will soon see whether you have a point, or whether you’re in error.
I’m right here, batting my eyelashes. Ask away.
FWIW I don’t deny climate change either, using the definition you have provided. I don’t even dispute that mankind’s CO2 emissions are likely to result in a mild increase in global surface temperatures. What I do dispute is the claim that such warming will be magnified by water vapor feedback, resulting in dangerous levels of warming.
What’s fascinating is how the warmistas – for the most part – don’t have a clear understanding of the theory in which they so fervently believe. As evidenced by the fact that practically none of them are able to provide a clear, precise definition of “global warming.” And very few of them are able to spell out what evidence would falsify their position.
I’m left with the conclusion that for the most part, the warmistas believe in global warming in the same way that a sports fan believes in his team. Or that a Cimmerian believes in Krom, the grim gloomy unforgiving god. The point is to demonstrate affinity; to have the beliefs which they believe a good person is supposed to have; etc. Not to have an accurate mental model of the universe based on facts, reason, and logic.
Okay, so great! We now all agree about climate change! Congrats. We can close the thread.
(There is a slight potential that this series of posts instead perfectly exemplifies the shit-eating semantic bullshit that has led people to stop bothering to engage you fucknut clowns in a meaningful fashion. Hell, I’m not even sure now why I bothered to stick my head into this clown car again. I don’t actually give a shit whether FXMasturbator cares about or changes his reputation. Adiablo, melon farmers!)
If my opinion, my thoughts and words, typed out online, had any power to actually change anything, it would be a far different matter, and I might actually give a fuck what stranger think about my person.
Or – and hear me out on this – the series of posts rapidly established that you were completely wrong about a bunch of things; it was made obvious in no time flat, by the simple expedient of engaging with someone in a meaningful fashion.
When next you feel the urge to make insulting claims about other posters instead of asking to see whether you’re right, maybe you’ll remember this and learn from it.
::shrugs:: A man can hope.
Look, as a scientist involved in advancing a theory in the face of those advancing a competing theory, I can recognize and describe data that supports the alternative theory. In FXMs GD thread, I was curious whether he would be able to do the same. His response was a semantic wormhole. He first asked me to define the sides of the debate. Then to define climate change. Since my interest was to see if he had the scientific orientation I was wondering about - the ability to recognize and acknowledge data that runs counter to your preferred model - the specific semantics didn’t matter to me.
So I asked him to simply define the construct HOWEVER HE WANTED TO, and even given total control over how to frame the scientific question, he was unable and unwilling to do so, preferring to fall back into semantic dickery.
So again, you are nothing but a disingenuous prick, as your history on this topic attests. You guys prove that a crank’s gotta crank - nothing more. I’m going to start my own imaginary list of SDMB posters who suck a bag of donkey shit, and you’re number one!
Since it’s child play to simply quote, (the software here even includes a link to the source), when I see somebody lie about something, rather than just quote, it gives the appearance of deception, not honesty.
There’a always this moment where I wish to simply show a lie to be exactly that, but this means you are entangled with a liar, and there is no payoff in showing them to be making something up.
It simply won’t matter. We know from research that a lie that enforces a belief is not countered with facts. In fact, a factual counter usually just makes somebody believe more, and adds a layer of “if it wasn’t true, then why are you trying so hard to show it’s not true?”. It’s a Catch 22, trying to correct or defend against lies people type out online. Here’s the exchange, in which he used the term “the AGW argument”, what he now refers to as “the construct”.
His response was
At which point I could tell it was a game, not an honest attempt at understanding anything, certainly not what facts would cause one to question the AGW theory.
It’s quite similar to the specious argument that AGW simply means the planet is warming. This level if idiot “science” is impossible to engage with, it’s more religion than science. It’s exactly why asking somebody to define their terms is greeted with all kinds of nonsense in return, rather than a simple clear scientific explanation.
My response in the thread was quite clear.
(more at the link)
It didn’t matter, and we see the same idiot point brought up here again. It’s why countering ignorance with facts is almost useless.
If what he meant was “the basic global warming theory”, then he could have simply clarified that. And since I have stated clearly many times my opinion about that, it is an easy question, Certainly he couldn’t actually be so ignorant as to not have grasped my previous responses, or to understand from a scientific POV, why they exist.
So it’s just a troll game in my view, and a waste of time.
Stating the theory, the physics of it, the history, none of that is hard to do. Nor is explaining why it isn’t right.
It’s impossible not to take note of the fact that FXM stopped quoting our exchange IMMEDIATELY prior to the point at which I explicitly stated he could define the terms in any way he wanted to.
He was unable and unwilling to do so, as is evident in the rest of our exchanges, which he omitted.
You do agree, The Other Waldo Pepper, that one should not selectively quote from source material, do you not?
Cherry picking in order to avoid the full truth is exactly how these fuckers operate at every turn. Science is the furthest thing from their interests.
Like I said, avoidance and games, it’s not an honest exploration. It’s also a common online idiot tactic to want your opponent to do all the work. Knowing it won’t matter in the least frees one from engaging (forever) with a dishonest troll.
One could take the exact same exchange, replace “AGW argument” with “the existence of God”, and do the same time wasting nonsense.
“So what would prove to you the existence of God?”
You have to define what you mean by “God”.
“You define what God means, anything you want”.
That’s an absurdism, you asked about something, then refuse to define what you mean, then insist I define what it is you want to argue about. Waste of time.
“No! I said you could define God however you want!”
Go away troll.