I think not.
And what was all that effort for?.. Oh that’s right, for nothing to do with the fact that you are incapable of finding good support for your say so’s regarding AGW.
And the sad part is that you are still wrong, I’m for sure ignorant of many things, but once someone posted a link to an specific item to the evidence on the Mumia Yamal case I got better. Sure, I was ignorant on an important item of the case and once I saw the evidence, it changed my mind; in other occasions a gut feeling turned to be 100% correct after later research confirmed it. And yet, in both cases I was ignorantly giving an opinion. In this message board I do think that we are expected to make an effort to support what we say, as the science reporter cited also says: even my opinion is irrelevant, what counts on this issue is the research and the evidence found by experts on the field; and in the era of the internet, trying to convince others that finding cites is impossible, is really silly.
The problem here is that you are proud of that ignorance and continue to defend a position that has no support, if this was an unscientific issue you may had a point, but in this subject, if you were correct, you should be able to find plenty of evidence to support your position. That we should not forget was that besides ignoring the science already cited we are here dealing with this bit of your silliness:
"They [leftists in the 70’s] all claimed science was on their side.
There’s a difference between ‘the left’ and ‘most scientists’. You need to learn how to make that distinction."
What it was clear by the evidence presented (that would had been impossible to produce according to you) is that popular media, just like today, got the science wrong, and this has nothing to do if they are left or right wing. And no, not all leftists nor scientists claimed an ice age was coming. The majority of the scientists still predicted that global warming was coming, regardless of the cooling that was being observed in the 60’s and 70’s. And even then, if some leftists did warn about global cooling, they were wrong. They should had listened to the scientists, rightists of today should listen to them.
That is only if we were dealing with just an opinion (and this subject it is not just based on opinions) one should still be able to find where the source of that opinion comes from or point at very important people that also support that opinion, so at least we can take it with them and not an anonymous ignoramus on a message board.
So what happens if no good expert nor an important person in the field supports even that opinion? Chances are that you are even wrong on pretending that even that opinion has any value.
Well, in the first place, it didn’t have anything to do with GW. It was merely intended to show that calling all uncitable opinion ignorant is, well…ignorant.
Depends upon the subject. To the best of my recollection I’ve never said that cites can’t be found with regard to GW.
My ‘position’ is skepticism. And I’m not particularly proud of it; it’s just there.
Again, I have no position. I’m not denying GW, I’m merely skeptical about it. And I have questions about it. Perfectly good questions. But they piss people like you off. If you had answers instead of insults, I’d listen to them. But you ignore them because you don’t have good answers and insist on bringing the discussion back to where you happen to feel most comfortable, which is the science you find conclusive on whether or not it exists. You could liken my position - in the event GW exists as claimed - to that of people caught up in the aftermath of an atomic explosion: it does no good to prove that an explosion has occurred. The questions are what are you gonna do about it, and is that solution both correct and doable. Whenever I ask those questions around here however, I merely get labled a denier and my questions get ignored. And why do they get ignored? Because you not only can’t answer them but you perceive them as a threat to your attempts to get people all whipped up over this issue. I don’t want them getting whipped up, though, because that’s how stupid solutions are born.
They do. They listen to the ones who say it’s bullshit. 
And why do they do that? Because lefties have been predicting one sort of environmental catastrophe after another for the last forty years and they’ve largely turned out to be baseless.
And besides, like many of your political persuasion, you are putting idealism ahead of human nature. Busy people trying to raise families and deal with the more immediate problems that life presents while still trying to make the most of their limited leisure time are simply not going to study every scientific claim that comes out on this issue. And they lack the educational background to understand it even if they tried. So all your emphasis on ‘science’ vs. ‘the media’ is for naught. The media is how people are getting their information and it always has been. If the media is largely pro-left and it often can be found promoting leftist predictions that turn out to be false, people are going to start ignoring it. You can only cry “wolf” so many times.
So again, I’m not adamantly against the possibility that GW exists, I’m just unconvinced. And until somebody can come up with credible answers to the questions I asked upthread, I’m going to remain skeptical and unenthused about getting government involved in trying to do something about it.
Who?
And as I pointed out before who you are referring too is very important.
And for your questions, well the thing is that they were already answered many times before:
Whatever. I’m not gonna waste time arguing over what the meaning of “is” is with you. If a subject is objective and cites can reasonably be expected to exist, then calling for cites is legitimate. If the subject is subjective and cites cannot be reasonably expected to exist, then calling for cites is nothing but an intellectually dishonest attempt at obfuscation.
Nope, the point is that then I would appreciate and I would attempt to understand how is it that others have the same opinion as my opponent has, then others and me can check if the one with the opinion is an expert or it is someone just made of [del]fail[/del] fallacy.
Others already pointed to examples were that is not the case.
And as much as you may wish to ignore it, everyone can see that more serious people on the right like Sam Stone and the Professor at BYU already accepted the evidence.
This issue, as much as many on the right would want it to be, is not a left or right issue.
I know.
Eh. So has gravity.
I’m not insisting on anything of the sort. I insisted, in fact, on the exact opposite:
I’m exactly as interested in what falsifiable predictions you can make about years to come as I am in what falsifiable predictions were made years ago. I’m not the one making those predictions; I’m the one who, ideally, would like to hear those predictions from each person on your side in this thread – and maybe each of you would give a different answer, at that.
That’s why I’m puzzled by this:
. . . because, from my point of view, I’m more analogous to an agnostic – in that, until you and yours offer up falsifiable predictions, you’re the ones who are offering up religion instead of science.
You copy-and-pasted the parts of my post that cried out far less for an answer than what I’ll now repeat: “So who, on your side, was predicting a ‘10-year period of no “apparent” warming’ back when? And, again, what specific falsifiable prediction are you and yours offering up now? Could any plateau or drop over the last decade-plus have caused you even a moment’s concern? Could any plateau or drop over the next decade-plus swing it?”
Possibly some of the folks in this very thread would say that a ten-year or twelve-year plateau isn’t enough, but twenty or twenty-five years would do it. Possibly some would say that a plateau of any length would be insufficient to falsify their conclusions, but a drop of half a degree each year for the next decade would do – and possibly some would say even a drop of a degree each year for two decades wouldn’t suffice.
Possibly each of you has a different criterion in mind; I have no criterion of my own, but simply consider whatever each of you brings up for discussion. That’s why I want to clarify a point regarding the following:
His evidence for the “warming trend” involved surface temperature – and I pegged my hundred-pounder analogy to that criterion. You didn’t rebuke Long Time First Time for saying the “warming trend” is a matter of surface temperature; I merely took him seriously, and want to know whether analogizing such temperatures to such weights – in which case she may well have lost weight from '98 to '10 – would be evidence against his position. If you want to swap in a different criterion, then, by all means, do so; I asked repeatedly for whatever falsifiable prediction you’d like to supply, and wholeheartedly do so again now – for you and for anyone on your side.
In the absence of that, I see religion instead of science. We’re all familiar with folks who explain away everything: if a patient improves after fervent prayer, it’s the will of God; if her condition worsens, it’s the will of God; no hypothetical evidence can falsify the position; all results are equally evidence, all are irrelevant. What can falsify a position about global warming?
At times, the constant drumbeat in the media seems to approach such an omni-explanation. Hotter winters? Global warming. Colder winters with less snow? Global warming. Colder winters with more snow? Global warming. More hurricanes? Global warming. Fewer hurricanes? Global warming. A rise in surface temperature? Global warming. A decline in surface temperature? Global warming. A plateau? Global warming. So give me the alternative: what hypothetical evidence could pile up – in years or decades to come – to falsify predictions?
(And, as per the earlier parenthetical: what falsifiable predictions were made back when regarding what’s gone on from '98 to the present? Remember, I’m not the one making falsifiable predictions; I’m the one looking to see whether your side is making falsifiable predictions. I’m not advancing a religious belief; I’m checking to see whether you and yours are.)
If twelve years aren’t enough, extend it out as far as you like – and, again, maybe each poster on your side will stipulate to a different time-frame, I don’t know; maybe Long Time First Time can be satisfied with a hypothetical surface-temperature decline over the next twenty years, and maybe you’ll hold surface temperature irrelevant while requiring a different criterion over the next forty. I don’t know. Tell me.
The longer the wall of text the less likely it is true, specially if there is no citations to show for.
And you continue to attempt mislead others, no matter how much you insist on concentrating on the current decade the reality is that scientists do look at a longer picture and they look even before the 70’s to conclude that there is global warming and we are having a controlling part on it after the 70’s.
In other threads the prediction issue was already explained, that you show here is not agnosticism, but willful ignorance.
I’m not making a citation in that text because I’m asking for a falsifiable prediction.
I’ll now ask, in short text: can you make a falsifiable prediction about global warming?
And what, in years to come, could falsify that conclusion?
Already posted in the last links, one just need to use just a little imagination to come with falsifications, unless you do not have imagination or the will to show all those scientists wrong. The empirical evidence shows that faith has nothing to do with it. I can see you will do the same and demonstrate to all that you learned noting, you will ignore that Latif said that in a global warming world we should not be surprised to see a decade or two of “apparent” global cooling.
Already mentioned before on past threads, but keep demonstrating to all how useless you are on even remembering things, hardly something to be proud when attempting to convince others.
Why use my imagination when you and yours can just tell me? I might get it wrong, and you and yours are right here.
If you’d read the long wall of text instead of deriding it, you would’ve noticed that I’m interested in seeing whether (a) Long Time has a different criterion than you do, and, indeed, whether (b) each of you has a different criterion from all the others. I’m also interested in seeing whether you’ve changed your position.
That said, I’m not the one trying to convince others. I’m not interested in making falsifiable predictions about whether the globe will get warmer or colder in years and decades to come; I’m the one interested in seeing whether you and yours make falsifiable predictions – and, again possibly each of you will offer up a different falsifiable prediction.
Again, I’m happy to rule out a decade or two of “apparent” global cooling as irrelevant – so long as something relevant to a different falsifiable prediction is offered up in its place. Long Time, for example, seemed interested in pegging his argument to whether a decade or two of “apparent” global cooling shows up; I’m just as happy to ponder any other criterion instead, but merely removing his without replacing it with something else is – well, religion, not science.
They can point to all the examples they want. Isolated exceptions don’t disprove the rule. You should know that.
Again, this proves nothing. (And besides, I think you’re misrepresenting what Sam said. IIRC, he said that the evidence is beginning to cause him to lean toward accepting that GW as fact. I don’t believe he has yet been absolutely convinced.) Everyone comes to believe what they believe on their own timeframe. There may come a time when I’m persuaded of GW, but if and when that time comes it will be because I’ve become convinced of it on my own and not because someone else on the right beat me to it. And besides, people of a like mind politically can still disagree. For example, I disagree with Sam when it comes to the legalization of drugs and Rand Rover disagrees with me when it comes to social issues. We are not all the same.
Doesn’t this statement pretty much disprove itself?
Now having said that, it depends upon the context. You appear to be hanging your hat on the scientific community when saying that, and I’m not familiar enough with the personal politics of all the scientists around the globe who are promoting or denying the issue to be able to say one way or the other. But when it comes to the public stage, lefties are very much in the majority in promoting the idea and righties are in the majority in opposing it. So in terms of public dialog on global warming, it’s causes, and what should be done about it, it’s very much a left vs. right issue.
How hard is it to say “25 years of no warming” or something like that?
The deniers have failed to come up with a good alternate theory, that is the reality.
On a previous thread **wevets **has no trouble coming with falsifiable items regarding AGW:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11253388&postcount=62
And, as you’ve referenced here, you likewise offered up a useful criterion in another thread, which I of course quoted back then: “for the purpose of falsifying the theory I would not expect to see increases … The point is that if in the next 10 years the temperatures remain constant or cooling that then the theory will suffer a huge blow … A temperature decrease in the next decade should indeed count against the current theories regarding AGW IMHO.”
Again, part of the reason why I wanted to see whether you’ve changed your position is that such statements seem to be at odds with what you’ve now posted here: “Latif said that in a global warming world we should not be surprised to see a decade or two of ‘apparent’ global cooling.”
I’ll wager that for every person I know who doesn’t believe in AGCC who looks at cold weather and says “Global warming? Humbug!”, I also know an uber-environmentalist who looks at a 100 F day and says “Global warming! See? See?”
People in general don’t seem to understand climate science very well.