I’ve had an epiphany.
Critiquing FX is like the neighborhood bully curb stomping the special needs kid… His limitations aren’t his fault and we should really try and be more tolerant and supportive while he struggles with his limitations…
You’re doing great FX, I’m very proud of you and your efforts !
Say, is that a mosquito I hear?
But is there anything in his post, data or logic that is incorrect?
I see lots of posters jump on FX but not many with any kind of logical or data based argument countering anything he is posting.
Bottom line: FX’s position appears to be “climate scientists have predicted things related to global warming that have turned out to be incorrect and the conclusion is that they really aren’t sure what exactly is happening yet”
Why is that controversial?
If the warmist side had made specific, interesting predictions along these lines in the past; and those predictions were coming true now; then they would be worth serious attention.
But that’s not what seems to be happening. Instead, warmer temperatures in traditionally cold parts of the world or at traditionally cold times of year are cited as evidence for their side. At the same time, colder temperatures are also cited as evidence for their side.
There’s a word for hypotheses which are claimed to be supported by evidence going in either direction.
Lol, good luck getting the warmists to focus on actual specifics.
While it can’t be known, I suspect that if the specifics were showing global warming, especially an increasing rate of warming, you would see them repeated all the time. And used as hammers because everything needs to be nailed.
If we were still seeing warmer winters, with less snow, especially a few extremely warm winters, it would be a never ending stream of focusing on that. The uninformed warmer still thinks an extremely cold and snowy winter counters global warming, so they shy away from discussing it. or dismiss it outright, or try to twist mentioning the cold into “denial”, because they are still brain washed by the classic warmer image of winters becoming less extreme, especially fewer of the long lasting and extreme cold kind of winters.
Because there is no question that was the prediction, it was shouted from the rooftops, along with the terrible loss of snow packs and glacier ice that so many depend upon for water each year. Catastrophic loss of snowfall and melting glaciers was a key scare tactic of the 2007 IPCC report, as much as the staunch believer would like to forget.
So of course specifics are to be avoided, unless they are record heat or a drought period. What is so ironic is that there were indeed a few dissenting voices back in the eighties that wrote about the possibility of warming from CO2 might lead to a different outcome, but you probably never heard of this before.
It’s all quite interesting, having lived long enough to observe changes, things that were distant predictions 50 years ago.
I assure you if there were, we would hear much about it. It’s why we see the caterwauling and vile insults, rather than an attempt to impose logic, reason, evidence and scientific thought upon the ideas and the data.
I may joke around, even now and then go SCIENCE BITCHES, but on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, I avoid anything that can’t be backed up by at least some source of real knowledge.
no, it’s louder.
and more like a quacking sound. 
People gave up trying to use those things when it became obvious FX was uninterested in them. Check previous, related threads.
If FX was actually interested in facts or data, posters would respond better.
Because it isn’t actually true.
It IS true that not all predictions have been totally, completely accurate. But that’s a totally misleading bar to set.
For example, say Joe estimates the KC Royals will win at least 140 games a year for the next 10 seasons and Bob estimates they’ll win fewer than 60 games over the same span. If they end up winning 61, Bob is closer than Joe and has a better handle on the truth. But FX would have us believe that’s meaningless.
Of course, there’s also the completely inane “OMG, a record cold was set today in East Bumfuck Iowa, therefore global warming must be false” bit that FX repeatedly uses. That, by itself, should set eyes rolling so far they’re in danger of falling out of skulls.
From the same site **Lobohan ** quoted:
sounds kinda dangerous to me (YMMV)
Brah…if you were an actual masochist and had bothered reading this thread in its entirety, you would not be asking that question.
Just upthread of here, I spitooned one of his loony proclamations trashing a Scientific American article.
Does he post factual cites? Yes.
Do the conclusions he draws from said material make logical sense to anyone not on a Charlie Horse high? No.
And his inability and/or refusal to understand anyone else’s cites that conclusively refute his conclusions underlines either supreme stupidity or committed trolldom.
But you’re doing great FX! Keep trying!
Oh that? That’s just Brazzer trying to hack up the semen he’s been using to lubricate his jaw…
but you can do better, I really think you can.
make sure your fiber intact in sufficient
ditto fluid, plain water is best
are you getting enough exercise?
once regularity has returned, repost in General Questions
good luck!
I read part of the Yahoo article and it presumed that any changes were due to global warming. That’s not really fact based, so the article didn’t seem too valuable. Maybe I quit to early but it wasn’t a good start.
I started to read the SciAm article and got to this point and stopped:
“According to Maria Diuk-Wasser at the Yale School of Public Health, the onset of human-induced global warming is likely to increase the…”
“likely” isn’t facts, it’s speculation, which doesn’t really help us figure out if we understand what is happening with the climate or not.
I’ve been reading his posts and I disagree with your conclusion.
Can you point to an example where his conclusion is illogical or where he refuses to accept a cite that is conclusive?
I’m open to being swayed, I don’t really care one way or another, logic and facts are my game.
That’s a bit simplistic, and there are many different things, I don’t think it can even be made simple.
Like the claims that global warming is leading to more disease, where they then claim the African virus problem in the US is due to global warming. It’s horseshit, and just reading the article makes that clear. The disease in the US is because PEOPLE WITH THE DISEASE got on aircraft and flew to the US. The vast majority of cases are exactly that. They say a few were “new” cases, from mosquito bites in the US. Which means some of the infected people actually were out and about and mosquitoes bit them and transmitted the disease to a new host, somebody that didn’t contract it in Africa.
In reality global warming had NOTHING TO DO WITH the spread of this virus to the US and Canada. There already are mosquitoes in all of the US and Canada. Claiming global warming is the CAUSE of the West Nile spreading is such complete horseshit, it’s staggering that an intelligent person can’t see this just by reading the goddamn story. They are blaming climate change, when it is actually air travel of infected people that caused the problem.
Same for the other disease problems that flew in, inside people, from infected areas. Of course blaming global warming is a nice easy way to just avoid even discussing the real problem, and a good way to frighten stupid people as well.
This horseshit about global warming allowing these mosquito born diseases to spread is just that, dishonest horseshit of the worst kind.
I participated in one of them and it was overwhelmed with GIGO spewing a bunch of cut and paste stuff and name calling.
But, FX’s point in this thread, that colder winters were not previously predicted but rather the opposite was predicted, is a reasonable data point to conclude that the climate scientists models are not reliable at this point.
Do you feel that the models are making accurate predictions and are reliable?
Understood and agreed that a prediction that is off by a small fraction is most likely better than one that is off by a large amount. (I say “most likely” because modeling is a tricky business to begin with, you can have a model that is perfect for a set of data but it doesn’t really model what is being modeled, it is instead “overtrained” for that set of data and could be very wrong for other sets).
But colder winters instead of warmer winters is a very substantial difference, wouldn’t you agree with that?
Do you realize that was in response to the poster stating that because Atlanta had a record hot day (or two or three or whatever) that it supported global warming? If there are record cold days, doesn’t that imply global cooling if we are using such simplistic metrics?
Of course it doesn’t. You can not take one city’s weather experience for one year and extrapolate that to make planet wide predictions. When dealing with statistics on a thing with so many data points, you can’t single out a single one and have it prove anything.
FX wants to look at Atlanta? Let’s look at Atlanta in 2012. Did you know it set record highs that summer?
Anybody who tries to extrapolate from “simple metrics” is a dumbass.
Yes, thank you.
That was exactly the point of the words you just quoted.
You did actually read my post that you quoted, right?
Read my post again:
“…that was in response to the poster stating that because Atlanta had a record hot day (or two or three or whatever)…”
I assume you don’t realize that you just responded with the Atlanta data that I had just pointed out was what prompted FX’s non-serious response.
I did, but I probably didn’t read enough of the context that you were responding to. My apologies for that.
In my defense, there is so much stupidity in this thread that my eyes have started to glaze over. Last time I chimed in, Blake claimed fuel efficiency kills people.
This post is the idiocy (not that FX has any shortage of idiocy) in question, so I’d appreciate a link to the post it was responding to.
Lol, good luck getting a straight answer is this simple, reasonable question.