So, FX. Why do the vast majority of working climate scientists agree there is man-made warming, and you don’t?
Is it that they are lying? It’s a conspiracy? Or is it that in this case, a completely untrained person can see something they don’t?
Alien Vessels, can you answer these questions asked of you by The Other Waldo Pepper?
Thanks.
Oh, hey, I’m content with his answer in post #839: eight years without warming won’t do it, but twenty-five would make him curious and eighty would “probably” do it. I admittedly wasn’t figuring on a timetable of quite that long before a lack of anticipated results would be troubling – but the response is fine by me.
It’s hilarious and kind of creepy how much passion and feelings the weather arouses, especially if you make the mistake of talking about weather when you mean climate. Or climate when you mean weather.
You are going to have to define " man-made warming" before we can know what you are talking about. Or if I “believe” in it.
I don’t buy into that CT. It’s also a false dichotomy you are proposing.
Not as far as I can tell. Certainly there is a huge bias problem, but the history of science tells us that is almost always the case.
That may actually be true, certainly the abundant data and conclusions from it leaves room for new discoveries. I noticed the cooling winter trend before the 2012 paper about it. It’s a main reason I became skeptical of the “official” story.
Of course when I talked about it in 2010 people thought I was a crank. Now, some intelligent people are actually in agreement with my views.
By that view, we could have a 60 year little ice age period and it wouldn’t mean global warming had “paused”.
Priceless.
Lol, good luck with that. Of course the resident warmists will never provide a precise definition of their position. As AlienVessels basically admitted, doing that would make them vulnerable to being proven wrong. So they must hide their position behind a cloak of ambiguity.
Yeah, that’s what I “admitted”.
You guys don’t even get it. It’s not about proving myself right or you wrong. It’s about parading you around the room so that for the umpteenth time people get to watch the dancing bears yet again and wonder “it’s not how well they dance, but that they can dance at all”.
Yeah, some people actually start ranting threads and then fill them themselves with frothing incoherent screeds. How creepy and/or hilarious is that?
Basically, yeah. Here’s what you said:
By the way, I take it you have no answer at all to the questions I asked?
-
Please explain to me the underlying model/explanation which causes you to predict that “it’s gonna get warmer.”
-
Exactly how will the warming you predict cause suffering? And how is it different from the warming which occurred (and has been occurring) as a result of the world’s coming out of the Little Ice Age?
-
What conditions would falsify your prediction?
-
In what way(s) do you disagree with Richard Lindzen? Like you, he seems to believe that “it’s gonna get warmer.”
-
Are you abandoning your earlier position that the world’s emergence from the Little Ice Age would not have been expected to cause a lot of “suffering”?
Lol, that’s the first time I’ve seen anyone claim to be trolling in order to avoid owning his position.
You know, if you admit that you haven’t thought through your position very carefully, the sky won’t fall.
Before I can know if I agree with that, you have to define what you mean by “the sky won’t fall”.
Isn’t everything?
I tend to ignore such things. What’s even more incomprehensible is how people who present themselves as intelligent, even “fighting ignorance”, can’t hold up their end of a discussion about scientific matters.
Instead mistaking their emotional fuckery with reason, their blazing ignorance with evidence, and their vapid insults with wit. Of course it is the internet, where the dumbest can flood the forum with idiocy, as they have nothing else to do all day.
Well at least that is honest. One could say that sums up the entire “debate” over climate issues, as it has become obvious it is no longer about proof, evidence or even science.
When the strident fuckholes claiming they know best can’t even define what it is they are claiming, the battle is not only lost, it’s a farce.
Meanwhile, in the real world …
snip
It finally dawns on FX why the mods kicked his beginning screed on climate change into the pit instead of one of the other forums where serious matters are discussed and debated amongst adults.
Also, this just in… Sun rises in West, Pope discovered to be Jewish. (Yes…old jokes that should be retired, just like you FX).
Yes, AlienVessels reminds me of Phil Jones who has been quoted as saying the following:
Guess what? Mars is cooling, in lockstep with the earth. Now, since there are no Martians making CO2, I wonder what this does to the AGW fanatics?
So it seems that the sun is the driver of climate on the earth…strange, isn’t it!
I’ve never understood why climate change invokes such passion. The way I look at it is this: The data seems to say that the planet is getting warmer, but it’s not exactly exactly a doomsday scenario. It could cause some problems, but the emotions involved in talking about it are ridiculous - mainly from the denialist side. Why do you people care so fucking much?
The idea behind fighting climate change is to be more efficient in burning fossil fuels. What the fuck about fuel efficiency makes people freak out?
Denialist, really?:rolleyes:
And people get passionate because it has been, and is being used as an excuse to destroy people’s livelihoods. And, no, that isn’t an exaggeration.
If you were going to lose your job based upon an hypothesis, would you perhaps get a little passionate?
If you were being told that you could no longer run the farm that your family had built up over 150 years, would you perhaps get a little passionate?
The only people who don’t care are the ones who aren’t actually affected.
The fact that it will kill people.
No, this clearly doesn’t mean shit to you, because you just told us that you don’t care. But decent human beings do care.
And no, this isn’t an exaggeration. One thing that every economist agrees on is that increasing fuel efficiency will cost lives.
By using less economically efficient technologies we contract the economy, and not just now, but extending into the future. As a result of the loss of income and retardation of innovation people die. That simple. If we can’t pay traffic police, people die in car accidents. If we can;t pay researchers, cures for disease come years later and people die.
Once again, this isn’t open to debate. Every single economist in the world agrees on this.
That’s what decent human beings freak out about: the idea of letting other human beings die needlessly. But not you. You don’t care. You just don’t get why people get passionate about this.
After all, this doesn’t affect you.
In the real world, amongst knowledgeable people, the debate is whether the cost in lives due to climate change will be greater than the cost of increased fuel efficiency. Nobody disputes that increased fuel efficiency must cost lives. But since none of this affects you, you just don’t give a shit about it. You are genuinely puzzled as to why these people get so worked up about an issue.
You haven’t even taken the time to examine the actual issues, have you? You’ve just hung onto the beliefs you got from watching Captain Planet: that there are meanies out their damaging “the environment” just because they enjoy it.
You honestly believe that don’t you? That their is no penalty at all to “fighting climate change” That nobody gets hurt, nobody loses their freedom to live their lives? It’s all just warm and fuzzy isn’t it?
Fucking overgrown kids.
How many people do you suppose will die, and have their incomes affected if middle-of-the-road warming comes to pass?
Goddamn, Blake. OK. Hybrid cars murder people. Got it.
What the fuck? :smack: I should have known better than to wander back in to this thread.
Yep. You really need to have better knowledge than what you got from watching Captain Planet before you post shit here.