In any case, it is really introllerable that you are not seeing that what I do is not a big issue, even granting that it is a big beef for you, most do not see it that way.
Our trolls here are lying and denying that the research that was made, that an attempted falsification was made, and the rebuttal of that falsification attempt took place. Researchers do not have a problem coming with falsifications or ways to claim that they minimized the positive feedback and most likely outcomes reported by more reliable scientists. Once again, not taking the trolls to task for their lying and willful ignorance in a more direct way is part of the problem.
Do you ever wonder why you so often come up against, and find ytourself again resignedly deriding, the complaint that AGW is like unto a religion? You maybe think it’s just a mindless insult, or a bit of projection, or whatever; I think it’s because people hear unfalsifiable claims and react accordingly.
Again: if I’m wrong, you lose nothing by putting a crisp and brisk and readily falsifiable prediction out there at the drop of a hat. But if I’m right, you’ll actually win people over; you’ll shoot down the “religion” argument before they’d ever think to make it, disproving it by putting up a claim that can be disproven.
Over and over, people bring up stuff they think counts against AGW – only to have you then tell them that it’s irrelevant. Why? Because you didn’t tell 'em ahead of time what would count as relevant. You could preempt debates, prevent debates, by clearly defining terms ahead of time. You could stop people from asking the wrong questions by spelling out what the right questions are.
Or – if I’m wrong about that – you still lose nothing by taking a moment to make yourself clear. Why not do it, in less time than these other posts take?
Once again, my opinion is that the all-important first step is laying out clear and falsifiable predictions – preferably on your own initiative, but certainly when asked. Yes, you have a different opinion; you say that “even granting that it is a big beef for you, most do not see it that way” – and if you happen to be right about that, you still lose nothing by taking a moment to spell things out. But if you’re wrong about that, you win everything by just briefly spelling things out.
What does playing coy get you? What does a quick and direct answer cost you? Why the reticence? I just can’t fathom it.
Wow…incisive TOWP. If someone can’t predict the end result of an incredibly complex system with many inter-related, constantly changing variables and slap a timeline on it for you, then it’s unbelievable?
You say you need a verifiable prediction? I can’t make one for Climate Change, but I’ll take a stab at one forevolution.
Given the content of your post, I’m thinking your brain is evolving into a bowl of oatmeal. You need a timeline? Oh… I think the transition will be complete by the end of this thread.
Oh look, it’s Fucktard and Bobbin, back for some more inane,“Your cites are irrelevant”.
Bad person Brazzers? Noooooo …Some of my best friends are trolls. Right up till I go flame thrower on them. ( Would you prefer being Original recipe or X’tra crispy?)
Really? It’s pretty obvious to me. As long as he sticks to other peoples opinions, or insults (his own creations, meaningless), he can’t ever be wrong. And it’s real fucking obvious that “being wrong” is to be avoided at all costs.
I see a clear pattern of posting continuously from late at night until almost morning. What kind of person has that sort of time to spend writing out endless meaningless posts? Obviously the bio information could be meaningless fictions, and the location/occupation are bullshit, and GigoGallop is really an unemployed person living in a far off time zone, but even that is doubtful.
I know enough to understand why he is so evasive, especially about the factors that are expected, according to the theory that climate models use to predict future changes. There are clear indicators that show warming is due to increased CO2, and if even one of these is shown to not be happening, the believers feel the entire theory is at risk. (It’s not, but they are not climate scientist, so they make this mistake).
The casual reader probably doesn’t have the basic understanding of climate theory, and if he has to put it on the page here, it opens it all up to observation.
And that is something to be avoided at all costs. It’s why skepticalscience.com avoids it, and why it’s members avoid it. if you actually get to the science, of course there are all kinds of issues and contentious debates taking place.
But to acknowledge this, that is to admit defeat, for the side that wants to tell you it’s all settled, and the only people who would question such a pronouncement are “trolls, shills, anti-science, deniers, evil, immoral or stupid people”, whatever insult they come up with instead of talking about science and uncertainty.
the weak minded might actually fall for such a tactic, and the science and the controversies are buried under the weight of stupid, which the internet delivers in spades. The idiot child self-proclaimed climate expert can’t even grasp basic things, but wants to argue at the highest levels. It would be completly ignored if it wasn’t so much damn fun poking the stupid monkey with a stick.
Such an idiot question has no answer of course. Of course the boorish tireless rebutter is always going to win, nothing can get through the ignorance of the self appointed guardian of right.
At some point you just start cracking bad on such a rich source of ironic humor. Maybe slip some science in, but seriously, what’s the fucking point?
Actually, you can see another way they “deal” with things. Complete ignorance, a blank stare, no response at all. Then back to some pathetic insults, broken English and accusations of “it’s all your fault”, or whatever insipid tomfoolery they just make up.
I mean, even their flames are half assed. It’s like they don’t have an App that generates insults, so they are at a loss for how to respond. A goddamn chatbot could do a better job of responding than the clowns trying to prove they are right and good and you are not.
The fucking OP of the topic is an exact global warming scare story, the only difference is it was record low instead of a record high. (the record high was the year before)
The irony? The real fucking funny as hell part? the climate clowns are so out of the loop (because SS and their ilk don’t actually publish the climate science) that they don’t understand that what I posted is actually real.
I’ve posted the links three times now, and nobody has responded in any way about it. Yes, the actual global warming/climate change gang has established that GLOBAL FUCKING WARMING is to blame for COLD conditions.
That GIGOGallop and company don’t know this, that’s the funniest thing in the thread.
If the clueless Mod hadn’t dumped the thread into the Pit I was going to introduce the papers and theory behind why we are seeing cold, snow, and why it matters in regards to climate change.
But nooooooo, you couldn’t fucking wait. Even when I posted the links, it was met with the blank stare, or rather the monkeys were too riled up and eager to start shitting in their hands to bother and read some fucking science.
Learning shit is hard, typing out whatever stupid thought you have is easy.
It’s screamingly obvious that the same amount of typing wasted on this bullshit evasion, GIGOGallop could have explained most of the current climate science theory, and how we know if it is happening.
But Jesus fuck me with a chainsaw, we can’t have that.
Look, I’m not asking for the end result; you can miss it pretty close, you can even miss it pretty far. As I’ve repeatedly said, in this very thread, you could easily phrase it as a floor: we’ll see at least X in the next Y years, say. And if we get even more even sooner – well, hey, that’d still qualify!
That would still be a verifiable prediction! But if you can’t even do that – if you truly find the system to be so incredibly complex that you can’t actually rule out anything on any timeline – well, then it’s void for vagueness, and, no, you’re not really doing anything useful or interesting.
Do you want to rephrase? GIGO can make a verifiable prediction about global average temperature over decades; he hates to do it, but when push comes to shove he’ll offer up an at least prediction in terms of tenths of a degree on a timeline of decades. Can you do likewise, or are you limited to insults?
Rephrase? So you want moi, a programmer by trade, to offer up a prediction on where Climate Change will end up? The actual ramifications of which I might add, are of uncertainty among the experts in the field… And somehow this will be more meaningful toward validating CC/ (Making it “useful” and/or more “interesting”) for you than predicting say, how a given species will evolve over the next century for evolution or if it will be raining six months from now for meteorology? Suuuuuuuure.
Here you go. Let’s go with an average increase of 5 degree F by the end of the century.
Excited? Was that useful? Any other matters a layman can make more exciting or useful for you TOWP?
ps I’m in no way “limited” to insults. I just happen to take particular delight in showing the flaws of “logic” in those who willfully choose to remain ignorant and attempt to proselytize this ignorance to the general public.
Once again, in the Case of Plass I already mentioned the falsification, in the case of the water vapor feedback I already pointed at the way to falsify it from the research Dessler did rebut.
Do you really still want to claim that it is worse to not point at the falsification of something when the recent posts here the trolls still tell others that there was no research made?
The last post from FX was a wonder of willful ignorance, the main point is that cold records are still happening in a warming world.
His accusation that scientists are blaming cold weather on global warming is a little bit more complicated, but it is not very hard to look at the local conditions for how cold records and weather can happen in a warming world.
So depending he is depending on denier sources to claim a certainty that is not there coming from the scientists, why is that he can claim that the “warming/climate change gang has established that GLOBAL FUCKING WARMING is to blame for COLD conditions.” ,have no support for what he claims and I’m the one with the problem?
It has not been established, what he claims here is a straw man, as in: I did not said that, and this is spin coming from denier sources. Currently most scientists report that so far it is a possibility that needs more confirmation than a few studies so far.
So there is support for the idea of changes in the weather pattern caused by the warming in the arctic are getting a hand on several cold incidents in the north, but it is misleading to claim that it was established like a certainty. The most established research demonstrate that the warm records are increasing compared to the cold ones and that is due to global warming.
The nice thing about knowing math is that you understan why the phrae “no warming in 200 months” is not contradicted at all by “last June is one of the hottest”, since, we all know this, we are in warm times.
Also, the NASA link shows that there have been 34 months hotter than this last June since 2001. This puts this last june in the 78th percentile. Not really record territory.
Still waiting on the “bullshit” quote and the explanation as to its bullshitness.
If, say, you were to rest with the I’m just a programmer by trade and can’t relay a verifiable prediction about climate change line – well, that would be completely satisfactory. It would tell me what you think is coming: you don’t know, you can’t say; it’s as hard for you to predict a minimum increase in global average temperature six decades from now as it is for you to predict whether it will or won’t be “raining six months from now.”
If that is, in fact, all you can say about the matter, then, yes, I’d appreciate you spelling it out.
If, by contrast, you can spell out a prediction that can be proven false – albeit not before the end of the century – well, shucks, that would also be appreciated. If you can make a verifiable prediction that could be proven false within 50 or 20 years – well, then, that, too would be appreciated.
You’re acting like there’s something unusual about blandly asking for your specifics; if you believe in AGW, why the heck would it be weird for me to ask what you mean by that? Maybe you had a “5 degree F by the end of the century” scenario in mind. Maybe you had a ‘tenths of a degree by the end of the century’ scenario in mind. How would I know what you had in mind without asking? Why the heck wouldn’t I ask?
I dunno; are there any other issues you wish to (a) relay verifiable predictions on, or others you wish to (b) declare you can’t make verifiable predictions on?
Uh, okay. I take delight in asking those who make vague predictions to make specific ones – seeing whether they move from “You say you need a verifiable prediction? I can’t make one for Climate Change” to “Here you go.”
It’s, like, the opposite of choosing to remain ignorant: I ask a question in hopes of learning your answer. It’s quite rewarding.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
By your own words already you are wrong indeed.
Once again, in the Case of Plass I already mentioned the falsification, in the case of the water vapor feedback I already pointed at the way to falsify it from the research Dessler did rebut.
Do you really still want to claim that it is worse to not point at the falsification of something when the recent posts here the trolls still tell others that there was no research made?
[/QUOTE]
I “still want to claim” that, as far as I know, (a) he doesn’t know what amount of warming you believe will take place, on what timetable; that (b) he’s requested your prediction, and that (c) you could relay it, in less time and with less effort than any one of your posts has required so far in this thread.
He wants to know what will falsify X. You can of course instead offer up ways to falsify A and B and C and D if you’re so inclined, but I’m of course scratching my head as to why you’re so reluctant to do here what you’ve reluctantly done elsewhere: spell out your minimum prediction re: warming upon request.
You want me to side with you against folks who find it silly that global warming is to blame for cold conditions. I want you to simply mention to him, as he’s requested, what you actually have in mind when you predict global warming – at which point it would be blindingly obvious to him why such events are completely compatible with your predictions.
It would take you a moment. It would take you a sentence. You could’ve done it pages ago, killing his assorted questions in the egg by removing my signature objection. I cannot for the life of me come up with a reason why you address other points with glee and ignore the crucial one for so long.
I think the “bullshit” is your inference on knowing math. Graph the numbers. Look closely. Closer clown clown, I don’t want any excuses about your myopia. See how the keeps going up? Sure, it jags down a little, but the overall path is up. For June? + 5.5.
TL,DR,WOMFT , ( Too long, Did read, Waste of my fucking time)
I think the misunderstanding stems from my overestimating your intelligence TOWP. My apologies for not “predicting”/anticipating you’d turn out to be an idiot.
So you’re saying Aji doesn’t even have to be competent at math? All he had to do was look at the little chart do-daddy to see he’s pushing bullshit? Wow. How simple does it have to be made for these “special” guys?
From the link:
J-D, 2001-2013 - I did it for 2013 up to July.
J-D is the average for the year. Numbers are 0.01°C above 1950-1980 mean.
53-62-60-52-66-59-62-49-60-67-55-57-56
So the change in average temp from 2001 to 2013 is 0.03 °C or 0.23°C per century.
Where did your +5.5 come from? Certainly not the link I provided, there is no 5.5 in the chart.
Or where you expecting me to say that there has been no warming since 1899 or 1930 or 1970?
I will, however, accept that on this dataset the no-warming period extend only 150 months (2001) and not 200 unless we want to go to 1998 (but that year makes warmists cry). There are other datasets that show a slightly different trend.
::shrugs:: I’m just glad you moved from “You say you need a verifiable prediction? I can’t make one for Climate Change” all the way over to “Here you go.” If you’d stuck with the former or led off with the latter, there probably wouldn’t have been a post of mine for you to lament the length of; as it is, you responded, and I thank you for it; if you want to continue with yet more insults, be my guest.
Many already did figure out that his opinion is not the only one that counts in the universe, because of that and many other reasons. Suffice to say I was not referring to the warming in the peculiar case of FX, but the false declarations regarding Plass not being recognized or that his theory was dismissed, I was also referring to the false declaration that there is no Water Vapor feedback, and now the false item from him that people like me said that it was established that global warming caused the cool weather.
That FX “wants to learn how much it will warm” is not the point here, but it is clear that TOWP has to ignore the asinine behavior of FX and others just to continue with a point that under other circumstances it would be good, but under the current ones of willful ignorance demonstrated he is reaching just ridiculous levels to not deal with the trolls. That is just about the best way to get others to see him as also one.
Not even Karl Popper would respect the current dissing of physical theories, most of his serious (not the toy version) falsification ideas were directed toward sociology and psychology.
that you are not seeing that what I do is not a big issue, even granting that it is a big beef for you, most do not see it that way.
Notice the uncertainty bars have tightened up on that chart as well.