Yes, I know; we’ve been over this: FX has requested your prediction on the question of warming, and you refuse to give it. You’ll talk about all sorts of other things, without addressing that one. And why? Because:
So you say. FX says he’d like to hear your answer. Why not make the debate irrelevant by simply providing the prediction? Why rail against willful ignorance while willfully refusing to dispel ignorance by swiftly answering the question?
Again, the best way to get me to drop my objection altogether – which would possibly get FX to drop his objections to you likewise – would require remarkably little effort on your part. You refuse to answer his question about warming because it “is not the point here”. You state that you are “not referring to the warming in the peculiar case of FX”. In the time it took you to write out your latest post, you could’ve settled the issue with a quick mention of your prediction instead of repeatedly talking about why you don’t want to talk about it.
How many more posts before you reply to FX with your verifiable prediction about warming, as he’s requested? Will you wait for weeks, as you have in the past? Why? What does it cost you to do it? What do you gain by refusing?
No, you’re still a stupid as hell moron that just happens to be paid
Global warming has already been defined, there is no controversy as to how its meaning and how its used. Only oily shill idiots would like to cast doubt on it. If you ever become honest, because let’s face it, you’re not getting smarter, you can debate Global Warming by acknowledging that everyone already knows what it means and what it stands for
Is it really an insult to simply highlight the stupidity in gainsaying experts but asserting you’re willing to be swayed by the predictions of a layman? (Okay. so I really enjoy the “highlighting” part… Sue me).
Look at the nice simple graph XT was kind enough to provide. Look at any decade since the 30’s when auto travel became the standard mode of transportation.
Simple question, no cherry picked date/conversion/location/ Celsius to Farenheit BS.
Do you see ANY extended down turn in there?
No? Daaaamn.
It’s like all we need is Adaher to pop in and we’d have the troll HOF for the SDMB going on here.
Well, “swayed” is an odd way of putting it. I’d say it’s more like this: imagine we meet a layman who says he believes in AGW. I’d ask what, specifically, he predicts. “That each year will be warmer than the one before.”
And then we meet another layman who says he believes in AGW; what, specifically, does he predict? “That we’ll see at least a one degree rise in global average temperature between now and the end of the century,” he says.
We meet another layman who says he believes in AGW; what does he predict? “To be honest,” he says, “I’m not sure. I don’t know what would prove it false.”
Assuming I believe each of them is telling the truth – not about what will happen, or about what the scientific consensus predicts, but simply and only about what each of them believes – then, yeah, I guess you could stretch the meaning of the word and say they each swayed me by dint of informing me. But that’d be a pretty weird phrasing; none of that would influence my beliefs about future climate change, and none of it would involve gainsaying any experts.
The longer this goes on the funnier it gets. It makes me glad I took Gigogalloper off of ignore.
Hahaha my prediction was wrong! Wrong I say!
It’s also funny that he is now trying to attribute everything to me, when it was ralph124c that started him on his rant.
Actually, as I showed with that excellent NOAA article, the two terms mean different things, and what those are. But you have to admire the keen mind that can say “it was a Republican idea to “change” the name, actually there was no change”, and not realize what that sounds like.
The entire joke here is based on the confusion between climate change and global warming. It’s why both sides realize there is something fucked up when you blame record cold on “global warming”, rather than climate change. But even if you use “climate change”, some people get upset, they think you are mocking them.
Actually, I just quoted a bunch of claims made about global warming, which at the time the Gigos of the world did not protest. Of course NOW he will dismiss them, because it’s pretty obvious it was horseshit. He calls it a “silly piece” and actually labels it “alarmism”.
So now you know how intelligent people view your alarmism. It’s just a matter of degree.
He does however, still have the moral jackassery of Lovelock down to a T
I would be carbon neutral even if there were no risk at all from fossil fuels. I oppose the oil industry, as well as coal, because of many reasons. I use the absolute minimum already, because I hate spending money.
I’m so goddamn green I won’t eat fish from the ocean, because of over fishing. I plant trees, I fight erosion and I hate fucking people who trash the world. I’m mostly vegetarian, for both ecological reasons and health. (not eating animals is supposed to really lower your carbon footprint)
It’s the holier than thou attitude of shitheads who want to preach that makes me sick. Gigofuck isn’t even the worst example of course.
Unless you have never used fossil fuels in your life, YOU are exactly the same. It’s your hypocrisy and animosity, which you will never recognize, that makes you a fuckhead.
that’s a judgement, and you have all the right in the world to act like an assbag. While you continue to pollute the world. But it makes you a hypocrite as well as a boorish waste of time.
Now take your religious shtick and shove it where the global warming don’t shine.
Maybe you think you’re lke the mayor of Gotchaville or something, you really aren’t even in charge of washing the assistant Comptroller’s of Gotchaville’s gardener’s soiled underwear.
Since I have never, not ever, said anything about an extended downturn in temperatures I don’t know what you’re talking about. I always mention a flattening or non-statistically relevatn warming since, depending on the dataset, 1995 to 2001. I’m sorry that you read that as “extended downturn”.
I accept as correct the chart, with the proviso that there are slightly different datasets with slightly different results and that for reasons that are not particularly relevant for this specific post I prefer satellite data when available.
Brah, could you spin a little faster? I wanna see if you explode or reach escape velocity… I’ll file your little lecture away under," Likes to make pointless, irrelevant requests."
Ummm. Brah. Do you like suffer selective amnesia or are you just intentionally duplicitous? Not that the distinction is important to the overall impression.
Hmm… 200 months sounds pretty extensive , but who knows? Maybe you’re one of the Eternals?
Meh, like if the mods here did not pass judgement already on who you really are, you were already shoved here in the pit, where the roast that is you will never make anything of value nor demonstrate ever where it counts that you are right.
And once again your silliness shows by insisting that I do not accept the science links or the definitions that you posted, as shown with the Scientific American articles I linked then to, you will continue to deny that they report that Plass is recognized as the father of the modern global warming theory and that Scientific American also reported on the research already done on the existence of the water vapor feedback.
So, continue to deny that the sources you used do help me a lot, it is not my problem that you do look like an idiot to others.
In what universe does “no warming” mean “dowturn”?
Just to make sure:
My claim: No warming, i.e. ΔT ≈ 0
You responded by saying that there had been no downturn, i.e. ΔT < 0 (stastistically significantly speaking)
I responded that I never claimed a downturn, only a pause.
You now quote my original post, the one that says “no warming” and, via a lame joke, tried to make it into “prolonged downturn.”
I’ll repeat, since 1930 (your date of choice) there has been no statistically significant downward trend in tempereature that has lasted more than a decade, but since I’ve never claimed that, I fail to see your point.
Second boo-fuckin’-ya.
BTW, I’ll handhold you so you’ll understand this phrase ““no warming in 200 months” is not contradicted at all by “last June is one of the hottest””.
Let’s say (invented numbers) this is the average temperature anomaly for the last 30 years in 0.01°C
Because it’s the most commonly parroted denialist trope and the easiest to repeat ad nauseum. It requires no understanding to state and quite a bit of understanding to make, as AGW is a pretty fucking hard subject to understand to any degree. You might as well ask why supporters of evolution so often get “it’s still a bird/bacteria/ape/dog/etc.” thrown at them. It’s a simple question with a difficult answer and allows those who don’t want to know to ignore the entire subject like the denialist cuntwickets they are.
First, it has to be noticed that Scientific American (the source deniers refuse to use unless a definition that I already accepted needs to be used to show others that I do not use –Yeah, I still wonder how that works in FX not a mastermind or the brasil nut’s favor) reports, the majority of the “skeptics” like to say that AGW is only a theory. Well, at least many skeptics, except the ones here, do see that it is there anyhow.
The same cite also reports what are the basics of the theory and others that have failed to pan out to explain the current warming.
As the National Academy of Sciences reports:
More, and the details in the PDF
The quoted PDF is a summary of the evidence, One important passage is here:
Much more in the PDF.
The problem of this line of “non inquire” is that it is indeed used to avoid dealing with the reason why we are in the pit, originally a stupid ranting from the OP on cold reports that I explained is misleading and a straw-man (specially when directed at me) and only continues the avoidance to deal with the blatant lies regarding Plass, his theory, water vapor feedback, what I do look at and read.
For some reason the deniers here assume that I would not welcome other sources of information that **continue **to show the deniers to be the clowns and fools that they are. And for some reason, the deniers (and some Karl Popper follower without a clue) never seen to grasp the concept of “give them enough rope and they’ll hang themselves”
I really think he just doesn’t know. Clearly skepticalscience doesn’t know. But this is beyond boring. Poking a pathetic troll like Gigogallop has no pay off.
He just can’t answer, and he doesn’t realize his quotes don’t either.
If I had to answer, it is quite easy. But of course I can’t answer for Gigo and company. I still don’t know what they mean when they say global warming.
Or what they are predicting will happen, or how we can know if it is happening.
Well who can argue with such a pseudo-scientific conclusion/claim like that?
I don’t think I’ve ever read any science based skeptic say those words. “AGW is only a theory” doesn’t appear on skepticalscience.
A Google search found scant references, mostly people like Gigo claiming other people said it.
The “consequences of global warming” doesn’t appear on SS
but it could be a wording problem. I keep waiting for Gigogallop to link us to where they answer those questions.
What do you mean? What does that say will happen? How can we know if it’s true?
With the endless posting about it, you might think one of the prophets of doom here could explain the prophesy, and why we should let them run the world.
For those who won’t bother to read a long pdf, the word “theory” appears three times there, but not in regards to an AGW theory, global warming theory, or greenhouse gas theory, nothing.
They start off as if “global warming” is well known fact and go on to support it, never defining what it means, or what the falsification would be, or the mechanism for how CO2 is supposed to cause it.
It’s more of the same avoidance.
On page 11 they first mention theory, by saying “Another way to test a scientific theory is to investigate alternative explanations.” They have not said what the theory is, and they never do.
Describing warming, they say
When trying to place CO2 as causation, they state
There is a pretty serious problem right there, since they have discounted the sun as a cause of warming, they do not explain the warming since the little ice age. It wasn’t the sun, and it wasn’t CO2, they just don’t talk about it.
There hasn’t been a 60 year warming trend either. There was a cooling then a warming. If you look at the present warming since 1940s (the warmest global period before present) till the current anomalies, there was slightly more than .3C warming. This is what is attributed to CO2 increase. Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
Now that is going to be disputed of course. GISS will show almost .5C, Hadcrut4 .4C, and BEST almost .6C with Land only between .5 and 1C, depends on who you believe at that point.
SSTs might be .2 to .4C increase. depends on who you ask. But the point is they start at the coldest time period to calculate the warming trend, which is cherry picking of course. (expect howls of outrage when GIGO gets to this part)
When they reach water vapor –
And
Now there is some serious claims about feed backs. It’s at this point that one might remember “Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor.”
I doubt that any of the warmist posters here have a clear idea of exactly what is and is not claimed by their side; what is and is not predicted by their side; or what factual evidence supports those claims and predictions.
My sense is that they simply repeat the same vague claims again and again so they can pretend to themselves and others that they are morally and intellectually superior. Thus the temper tantrums when presented with questions they cannot answer.
