Piffle, Not more needs to be said then to this liar.
You and your troll groupies will never get any recognition nor validation where it counts, and this is because even in the cites you found there is a treasure of information that supports me and the scientists.
Unless you are willing to now claim that Scientific American was making a fraud, the reality is that there is plenty of evidence for the water vapor feedback. And that Plass is recognized as the father of one of the lines of evidence that shows that AGW is a reality, and it will become a larger problem the longer we continue to release gigatons of CO2 and other global warming gasses in to the atmosphere.
And thank you for those posts John DiFool. Cheshire Human and many others on PM!
Can you point to one specific instance of what you say is bullshit and explain why it is?
Industrialization (and the CO2 that comes unfortunately with it) is the most important thing that has happened to humanity since agriculture. It has taken a gigantic ppercentage of the population of earth to a level of life that 18th emperors and kings could never dream of. My own country is just catching up to industrialization which, for example, means using a gas stove and a chimeny instead of alpaca-dung and a hole on the roof. It means using a car to get to the next town instead of walking (30 minutes instead of 6 hours). It means that truck come come to your town a pick up ypur produce so yu can get a better price It means internet accesse, vaccines, clean water, schools, etc.
SO, you can take your pathetic pampered-life whining and stick it through the body orifice that produces the least pleasure for you. Industrialization meant cutting down extreme poverty from 25% to 8% and poverty from 25% to 13%. Beofre you tell me to switch to biofuels (which make food more expensive, ergo more hunger), wind (unreliable), solar (which can help a bit but it’s impossibly expensive for a family making 200 bucks a month).
So, if after about 200 months of no warming, of proclaiming certainties in a leviathanically complex system, of not knowing the ammount of even the sign of a forcing, of mixing science and politics, of screwing profesional carreers because of doubts, you tell me you know the answer and that the answer is "screw some poor brown people while we simply switch to CFLs and maybe buy a V6 instead of a V8 and go near the produce market to make you feel green, don’t give me lessons in eco-fucking-firendliness.
Again the challenge. One bullshit statment I’ve made and prove it.
That’s an interesting phrase – “willful idiocy and ignorance”.
Right here in this thread, we have (a) people who offer predictions about AGW, and (b) people who ask those folks for specifics.
The former group could, of course, provide specifics upon request; I’m constantly amazed that they don’t pair their Our Planet Is In Peril remarks with a brisk “we’ll see at least X, and probably Y, in the next Z years” comment on their own initiative – but I’m doubly astonished that they don’t do so when asked.
Instead, ignorance about their position is de rigeur – not because of those who ask for clarification, but because of those who willfully refuse to supply it. The questioners can’t provide the answers; the folks making general predictions are the ones who could, at will, switch to specific predictions.
Maybe they’ll wake the fuck up and repent, embracing clarity instead of – what was your phrase? – acting like pimply low-life scum, jerking off when they could be providing answers. There’s so damned much riding on getting the word out; it’s not a time for coyness, it’s not a time for unnecessarily long delays; it’s a time for stark and clear specificity, to be delivered whenever the issue is raised.
And as pointed before, only by ignoring the oceans is that you can make that claim.
There is a huge difference from one politician that accepts the science and one that is a denier, Republican leaders in congress will have to change because even the republican voters are more aware of the problem that the ones that deny it. And your expense FUD talk is bullshit too.
No, the “asking for specifics people” already have lied several times about those specifics, (even to the point of declaring that there is no evidence for the Water Vapor feedback, or claiming that the theory of Plass was dumped and many more.)
There is a huge difference between someone lying and someone that sees that the “specifics crowd” are not dealing with those lies. Indeed the mote in the eye you are complaining is the result of clear JAQoffs with a side of dishonesty beams in theirs. And one has to question why you are ignoring those acts.
Because, as I recently put it right here in this thread, the one making the claim is of course the one who should define his terms. Or, like the man said, ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them. I’m troubled by folks who make incorrect claims that can be proven wrong – but I’m far more troubled by Not Even Wrong types who make claims that can’t possibly be proven incorrect.
The former is a mote, as mere falsehood can simply be countered with truth; it’s a cliché that sunlight is the best disinfectant. The latter is a solid plank; confront it with truth in the harsh light of day, it remains intact and untouched. Facts can defeat the former; the latter is immune, and therefore horrifying.
Does it concern you at all that June was both the 2nd and the 5th warmest month? At the exact same time?
“Global average surface temperatures during June were either the second OR the fifth-warmest on record for the month, …they use slightly different methods to analyze the data, which can result in slight differences in their rankings.”
That is… just avoiding having to say something concrete against the gross liars over here. I wonder why it is so **hard **for you to deal with them. As I point also on discussions like this, there is a lot to clean up on that side of the isle before a good discussion can be had. Not to mention that I already advised on a simple way to falsify what Plass reported, but it seems that you did miss that on your way to deal with the mote and not the beams.
It is the same issue that one has to take into account when contrarians use the Hadcrut data set, there are less polar stations that the group uses to get that data set, so it is the favorite of contrarians to allow them to find more cherries that show less temperature increases.
Scientists do take those limitations into account, except contrarians. In any case the point stands, what Aji said was bullcrap.
Take a step back and view things anew: you figure there’s a lot to clean up on the other side before a good discussion can be had – and I of course figure there’s a lot to clean up on your side before a good discussion can be had. If you’re wrong – if you truly are the plank rather than a mote, if your position must be made clear before it can even be considered – then you should of course spell it out upon request. And if you’re right…
…well, shucks, if you’re right, then what have you lost?
Again, you could easily produce a quick We’ll See At Least X, And Probably Y, in The Next Z Years whenever the issue arises: either on your own initiative, or whenever asked. I think that’s the plank, because I’m thinking a lot of the folks who think AGW is disproven by every cold winter or mild summer or whatever would’ve seen the light by now if you and people like you would crisply and briskly spell out just what AGW predicts instead of leaving them to guess.
But if I’m wrong – if plank-like opposition would persist even after you’ve dealt with the mote of swift clarification – then what’s the harm in supplying distinct ideas that reason can act upon?
You say you already advised on a simple way to falsify what Plass reported; I say – because I’ve seen you do it before, albeit with great reluctance and after an unnecessarily long delay – that you can simplify further; I say there’s no need for you to indirectly advise, since you can flatly state. It would take you less time and effort, while clearing up the whole issue by answering the questions you’re being asked.
Given only what you’ve posted in this thread, I truly couldn’t say what future hypothetical evidence would force you to admit that your current prediction is dead wrong; I couldn’t say how soon you could be proven incorrect, and I couldn’t say which results would do it. You say the other side is gross liars? I say you’re refusing to give them the information they need; remove my objection by making it irrelevant which side is at greater fault.
Just don’t be at fault at all; simply put the clear terms of your position out there, and I’ll have nothing left but the other side to zero in on.
I already did as per your own words, stop playing the tacit defense of the indefensible. The trolls here are not looking for falsifications, as in the case of the water Vapor feedback, there is nothing to falsify for them, they claim that it does not exist, period.
Spreading falsehoods is worse that not replying to a troll that already got a reply** to what they were not looking for** (Think about it, already a reply containing a falsification was useless for them as what they claim about Plass does not need that, his science and his legacy were declared (defined I should say) as useless or irrelevant by the trolls here.
It is high time that you take to task the trolling, the lies and misinformation that the clowns push here and elsewhere.
Lol, good luck with that. The warmist side deals in vague generalities; unsupported conclusions; and ad homenim attacks. Their basic argument is “If you question us you are a bad person.”
So says the one that “banned” me, because I did point at his denial of the evidence of the Water Vapor feedback, he even claims now that the research that was done does not exist. How can one talk about the next step of falsification when in reality the ignorance of the research and the data is willful?
First: as per my own words, you did it – after an unnecessarily long delay – in another thread entirely. As per my words in this thread, pages ago: “Do you honestly believe FXMastermind knows what hypothetical future evidence you think would suffice to prove you wrong?”
I don’t think he does. I don’t know why you’re being coy about it here and now; it’d take a heck of a lot less time and effort for you to mention it than to keep responding to me about – why you don’t feel like responding in a way that would easily convince me FXMastermind now in fact knows your position.
(Again: if you’re wrong and they are looking for falsifications, then you can save the day by just supplying one as they’ve requested. And if you’re right, supplying one just removes my objection in short order.)
Second, remember that I’m of course gun shy; I’ve seen you move goalposts a bunch of times on falsification criteria: you made a proposal, then later backed away from it, and then waited a long while before making a second proposal, and then backed away from it, and then waited a long while before making a third proposal; possibly you’ve moved on again as usual.
It’d be just as easy for you to relay your current position to FXMastermind as it’d be for me to make an educated guess at it; the difference is, you actually know whether it’s still your position. (I mean, sure, I’ll reluctantly spell out your last known position if you’re unwilling, but – jeez, man, why aren’t you eager to spread your message? It’s your message! Why should I take a stab at your specifics du jour when you should be shouting them from the rooftops?)
I don’t get it. You’re emphasizing that your reply was – to what they weren’t looking for? I, uh, agree. I think you should reply to what they were looking for. If, for example, someone asks you for your prediction, just, y’know, relay it.
Why? To the extent that you’re already on it, I don’t see that repeating you would add anything. To the extent that you’re being criticized for failing to mention something you could easily mention – something which, if experience is any guide, you’ll for some reason eventually provide if prompted enough times – I feel the most valuable contribution I can supply is reminding you that, uh, hey, buddy, your argument gets more persuasive when you mention what it is.
They strike me as unrelated questions: what you think will happen, and why you think it’ll happen. You can eeeeasily mention the “what” – regardless of whether folks give a crap about the “why”. You can relay said prediction with or without said explanation. Why not do so? Wouldn’t it take slightly less time than typing out “How can one talk about the next step of falsification when in reality the ignorance of the research and the data is willful?”
Remember, while you would like to play coy on this, many here do not see you as being better than many of the trolls here. I do however remember how you do eventually notice that indeed there is falsification in this science, as I pointed before, it does take awhile
(There is still a bit of projection and a little bit of not figuring out even simple falsifications and there is the issue of always missing the point that I’m not indispensable, but that is not important here).
To have progress where it counts (like in the congress of the United States) we do need people like you to help remove the blindness that is coming from the ones that are not even reaching first base.
You think I eventually notice that there’s falsification? You eventually mention what you think would falsify your claim, at which point it’s obvious and I of course can’t help but notice it; the only person waiting to do things “eventually” is you. (And you want to accuse me of projection? Astonishing.)
No, that’s the same issue: you’re indispensable when it comes to relaying your falsifiable predictions. If twenty people declare they’re predicting global warming, it’s entirely possible that each one has something completely different in mind; a result that would prove Guy #1 wrong might fit Guy #2’s claims perfectly, and so on down through #3 and #4 and et cetera.
You’re the one making a prediction; I’m the one who’ll point out whether your prediction turns out to be true or false. If another guy wants to pop in and predict a completely different amount of global warming on a completely different timetable, I’ll gladly be the one who points out whether his claims prove true or false. And if another other guy then announces his prediction of warming – but doesn’t spell out his criteria – well, then, I’ll gladly point out that his claim is unfalsifiable, in hopes that he’ll eventually follow your example of providing specifics.
That’s your opinion; my opinion is that you can get other people to first base by simply mentioning your falsifiable prediction. And my opinion is that I can get you to so mention it – after an unnecessarily long delay – since, y’know, that’s how it’s repeatedly played out before. Why you wait, I may never know.
This what I feared, this is really silly. What you demand is not science but guessing, I defer to the science, and even if I’m not as knowledgeable, it is really silly to think that what scientists are reporting is not science, or that it is so hard that others could not figure it out or think that others can not ever figure out or think that others could never ever figure how to falsify it.
You’re mistaken. Go back roughly three posts if you missed it the first time: I said that one can announce both what is being predicted and why it’s being predicted. The whole point of noting that you can relay both your prediction and your explanation is that you’re not just, y’know, guessing: you have a claim to make, and you have a big fine explicable reason for it.
::shrugs:: In my experience, the scientists do a remarkably poor job of putting their specific predictions out there. I’ve seen 'em stick to unfalsifiable generalities on television and in print, sure as I’ve seen smart and well-educated people on this very board – dedicated as it is to fighting ignorance – who believe that climate change is coming, but when pressed for details will readily admit that they don’t actually know what’s being predicted, such that they genuinely can’t spell out what climatic activity would prove the prediction false.
After an unnecessarily long delay, you’re occasionally willing to relay your falsifiable prediction – which, again, isn’t a mere guess; you have an explanation. I find your willingness as praiseworthy as I find your reticence condemnable – but that doesn’t mean I figure “others could not figure it out or think that others can not ever figure out or think that others could never ever figure how to falsify it.” You claim it, but you’re assuming; you should probably stop doing that.
And this silliness of yours is more painful when one remembers that we had already a very long conversation on the increasing intensity of the hurricanes and only when cornered you finally admitted what there was a falsification. After I made notice of it early. Sorry but history shows that indeed it is you the one that is projecting.
The point is that science (and falsifications) do exist on this subject even if you think that you need an anonymous poster on the internet to figure it out. Otherwise you are only trying to make the inference that all peer reviewed science reports on this are committing fraud.
I do not think that you will win this one, I’m not that important that my falsifications would make a difference where it counts, specially when it is clear now that you are ignoring that contrarian researches have already done the business of attempted falsifications that did not pan out. (It is a long history if you have not noticed yet) You are indeed trying your damnest to make my opinion the important one when it is really not hard to figure out the one that the scientists have and the falsification attempts already tried by contrarians.
IOW, you did not check the cite I made already on the Water Vapor feedback, indeed my point elsewhere that you are using a toy falsification point is more valid, just like Spencer did with his attempt at falsifying most of the warming caused by CO2 with his toy model.
Your criteria on that one revolved around whether other people will later say that hurricane intensity has gone down. As I pointed out at the time, you refused to offer a falsifiable criterion about hurricanes themselves; the only thing that would prove your prediction false is if other people say X instead of Y.
By comparison, your falsifiable prediction about warming was a thing of beauty: it involves measurable physical stuff in the outside world. Your falsifiable criteria for hurricane intensity was – not at all like that.
It’s like saying A will be the best quarterback in professional football this season – and, when asked, specifying that you mean he’ll complete the most touchdown passes. It’s like then adding that B will be the best running back in professional football this season – and, when asked, specifying that you mean your dad said B would be the best, and you’ll believe your dad was right until and unless your dad says otherwise. I grant that it’s still technically falsifiable, but it’s weird and kinda useless.
Again, you’re making a weird and unwarranted assumption. Why not ask me a question instead of making that claim?
::shrugs:: Either your latest prediction will prove true, or it won’t. Likewise for everyone offering falsifiable predictions – regardless of what’s come before.
I’m not the one with a “toy model” or a “toy falsification point”. I’m the one who simply applies your falsification point of choice to your own prediction, just like I obligingly apply anyone’s falsification point of choice to their own prediction. I do this whether it strikes me as a relatively useful one that refers to the climate (such as the one you use for future warming) or a relatively useless one that doesn’t (such as the one you use for what people will say about hurricanes).
