Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[nwdiver]

Great post. Funny how the only other person here other than me (you) who seems to understand how the scientific method works believes the same things I do. That just shows you that the majority of the posters here are quasi-religious zealots who have no real interest in or knowledge of the scientific method.

Says the guy that rejects the current theory because it hurts his worldview while not having the courage to present an alternative hypothesis that does a better job at explaining the observations.....

 

[jrad6515]

OK so you are all good with me calling you an alarmist?

No of course they aren’t. These snowflakes here can dish it out but they can’t take it. That should be very obvious from the last few pages of this thread.

These guys cannot disprove the null hypothesis so they resort to condescension, name-calling, and general trolling behavior. I guess when you don’t have science on your side you have to resort to these tactics to advance your socialist agenda.

 

[jrad6515]

Says the guy that rejects the current theory because it hurts his worldview while not having the courage to present an alternative hypothesis that does a better job at explaining the observations.....

Says the moron who had no clue that there was an Ice Age with CO2 levels 10 times higher than they are now and who thinks that temp lags CO2 changes in the Vostok ice record rather than vice versa. That alone proves you to be totally clueless and without credibility.

But I do enjoy your posts. I really like seeing clueless AGW zealots make fools of themselves in a public forum.

 

[jrad6515]

My goal is to discuss CAGW theory. Sorry if I am upsetting your echo chamber.

You and I have added a big dose of reality to this clown show. I think we are guilty of causing these snowflakes some serious “climate despair“. Maybe we need to find a therapist who can treat them, lol

 

[nwdiver]

Says the moron who had no clue that there was an Ice Age with CO2 levels 10 times higher than they are now and who thinks that temp lags CO2 changes in the Vostok ice record rather than vice versa. That alone proves you to be totally clueless and without credibility.

But I do enjoy your posts. I really like seeing clueless AGW zealots make fools of themselves in a public forum.

So.... just gonna ignore stellar physics? Just gonna ignore that the sun was dimmer 400M years ago? I guess if facts are meaningless if they don't fit your worldview.... why not?

Have you decided which narrative you're going with? Must be liberating to just make things up as you go... makes it harder to stick with reality though....

 

[jrad6515]

Looks like one of the countries with the most idiotic alarmist beliefs is actually getting cooler:

Declining Heat In France | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

Add this to the growing list of places in the world that have actually cooled over the last century rather than warmed like some crazy wackos here believe.

 

[nwdiver]

These guys cannot disprove the null hypothesis so they resort to condescension

.... describe the test you think should be performed....

Should we;

• See if CO2 absorbs more IR from the Earth than visible from the sun altering the radiative balance of the atmosphere?
• Measure the heat absorbed by the oceans to see if it roughly matches the predictions?
• Tally the CO2 emitted by our fools fuel addiction to see if it's a sufficient quantity?
• Measure the CO2 ppm annually to determine if it's actually increasing?

What test should be performed?

 

[Swampgator]

You and I have added a big dose of reality to this clown show. I think we are guilty of causing these snowflakes some serious “climate despair“. Maybe we need to find a therapist who can treat them, lol

You know what I find discouraging about talking with folks like these? Just like antifa, they attack you relentlessly, and personally, just because of diversity of ideas. They are The Hive for sure.
You and I are both Tesla owners. They really don't like that because we don't believe that man made global warming is going to destroy the earth. But we have so much common ground. And they don't care. It is fascist really. You must conform 100% to their world view, or shut up and go away.
You and I both probably like the idea of solar and batteries for energy independence. So, we are basically supporting the same things as they are. Buying the same zero emissions vehicles. Supporting Tesla as a company. And yet they lash out and want us to go away. It's a groupthink that is really terrifying. This is how groups like antifa get power. They can run up and punch people while wearing masks in a mob of people wearing masks, and somehow they consider THEMSELVES the anti-fascists.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

.../ CAGW alarmist.

Today more than 99% of climate science experts agree humans are causing global warming.

The consensus among those scientists is alarmist.

And that makes me an alarmist as well.

_____________________________________
Some context for anyone who may not be aware:

The people behind the usernames ”Swampgator” and ”jrad6515" (above) are Science Deniers and have been trolling this thread for I don’t know how long…

 

[ohmman]

You know what I find discouraging about talking with folks like these? Just like antifa, they attack you relentlessly, and personally, just because of diversity of ideas. They are The Hive for sure.
You and I are both Tesla owners. They really don't like that because we don't believe that man made global warming is going to destroy the earth. But we have so much common ground. And they don't care. It is fascist really. You must conform 100% to their world view, or shut up and go away.
You and I both probably like the idea of solar and batteries for energy independence. So, we are basically supporting the same things as they are. Buying the same zero emissions vehicles. Supporting Tesla as a company. And yet they lash out and want us to go away. It's a groupthink that is really terrifying. This is how groups like antifa get power. They can run up and punch people while wearing masks in a mob of people wearing masks, and somehow they consider THEMSELVES the anti-fascists.

I really recommend against trying to set yourself up on the argumentative high ground. You've used personal attacks repeatedly as well, and your logical fallacies don't seem to go away despite railing against others'. Your buddy is even worse, with apparently no ability for self-reflection or evaluation. His poor faith behavior here (including agreeing to join me to reproduce studies, then bailing) earned him the sole spot on my ignore list.

I apologize for being away for a day or two. We have family in town and I've also been actually working on climate policy (forcing cross-boundary emissions to be accounted for within municipal and county climate action plans). It's much more fruitful than arguing in this extremely tiny and insignificant corner of the internet. I have, however, read all of "Javier's" posts and comments on Curry's blog and have made notes. His support for Mann and others (and the heavy use of their work in his opinion pieces) makes me surprised you like his pieces, aside from the fact that they provide another piece of a multivariate explanation for climate. You do realize he thinks CO2 is the primary forcing factor and that it's 90% anthropogenic, right? I look forward to talking about that before long.

But in the meantime, we do need to get back to the consensus understanding. I promise you that I am not trying to corner you into a "gotcha." I am more curious about where your understanding or faith in the consensus breaks down, compared to where mine continues, because I think that inflection point may give us some knowledge as to what's either shaky science or just unacceptable or overly acceptable to internal hard biases from one or the other of us.

I believe when we left off, you agreed that there's a consensus on Industrial Age warming, and you join that agreement. You agreed that TOBS adjustments, and the more recent and accurate pairwise homogenization algorithms are good proxies for data adjustment. You also agreed that there's a consensus that human activity is a factor in the warming, but didn't agree with the quantifiable nature of that statement. Am I good so far?

 

[Swampgator]

I really recommend against trying to set yourself up on the argumentative high ground. You've used personal attacks repeatedly as well, and your logical fallacies don't seem to go away despite railing against others'. Your buddy is even worse, with apparently no ability for self-reflection or evaluation. His poor faith behavior here (including agreeing to join me to reproduce studies, then bailing) earned him the sole spot on my ignore list.

I apologize for being away for a day or two. We have family in town and I've also been actually working on climate policy (forcing cross-boundary emissions to be accounted for within municipal and county climate action plans). It's much more fruitful than arguing in this extremely tiny and insignificant corner of the internet. I have, however, read all of "Javier's" posts and comments on Curry's blog and have made notes. His support for Mann and others (and the heavy use of their work in his opinion pieces) makes me surprised you like his pieces, aside from the fact that they provide another piece of a multivariate explanation for climate. You do realize he thinks CO2 is the primary forcing factor and that it's 90% anthropogenic, right? I look forward to talking about that before long.

But in the meantime, we do need to get back to the consensus understanding. I promise you that I am not trying to corner you into a "gotcha." I am more curious about where your understanding or faith in the consensus breaks down, compared to where mine continues, because I think that inflection point may give us some knowledge as to what's either shaky science or just unacceptable or overly acceptable to internal hard biases from one or the other of us.

I believe when we left off, you agreed that there's a consensus on Industrial Age warming, and you join that agreement. You agreed that TOBS adjustments, and the more recent and accurate pairwise homogenization algorithms are good proxies for data adjustment. You also agreed that there's a consensus that human activity is a factor in the warming, but didn't agree with the quantifiable nature of that statement. Am I good so far?

Yes and point 1 and three. No on point 2.
I still find it rather instructive that you ignore the mob mentality of your compatriots and their attacks on anyone who disagrees, presumably because they are on your team.
And please, give the "logical fallacy" term a rest. This could be used on both sides anytime one cares to invoke it, and is therefor essentially useless, except to make yourself sound more intelligent. Of course you will then accuse me of ad hominem

You just watched one of your team invoke the 99% garbage consensus number, and another two justify pejorative terms for me because they want to and feel justified. Yet you said nothing. Now, when my friend on this thread was over the top, I admonished him to take the higher road. Yet, you recommend against ME trying to take the higher ground in arguments.

 

[Swampgator]

I really recommend against trying to set yourself up on the argumentative high ground. You've used personal attacks repeatedly as well, and your logical fallacies don't seem to go away despite railing against others'. Your buddy is even worse, with apparently no ability for self-reflection or evaluation. His poor faith behavior here (including agreeing to join me to reproduce studies, then bailing) earned him the sole spot on my ignore list.

I apologize for being away for a day or two. We have family in town and I've also been actually working on climate policy (forcing cross-boundary emissions to be accounted for within municipal and county climate action plans). It's much more fruitful than arguing in this extremely tiny and insignificant corner of the internet. I have, however, read all of "Javier's" posts and comments on Curry's blog and have made notes. His support for Mann and others (and the heavy use of their work in his opinion pieces) makes me surprised you like his pieces, aside from the fact that they provide another piece of a multivariate explanation for climate. You do realize he thinks CO2 is the primary forcing factor and that it's 90% anthropogenic, right? I look forward to talking about that before long.

But in the meantime, we do need to get back to the consensus understanding. I promise you that I am not trying to corner you into a "gotcha." I am more curious about where your understanding or faith in the consensus breaks down, compared to where mine continues, because I think that inflection point may give us some knowledge as to what's either shaky science or just unacceptable or overly acceptable to internal hard biases from one or the other of us.

I believe when we left off, you agreed that there's a consensus on Industrial Age warming, and you join that agreement. You agreed that TOBS adjustments, and the more recent and accurate pairwise homogenization algorithms are good proxies for data adjustment. You also agreed that there's a consensus that human activity is a factor in the warming, but didn't agree with the quantifiable nature of that statement. Am I good so far?

As for Javier's comments, I find him reasonable and fairly impartial. That's why I enjoy his work. I don't have to agree with every idea of his, but I don't find him politicizing the issue which is refreshing. Same for Dr Curry, who has more climate bona-fides than anyone posting on this thread.
But unfortunately this issue has become a left-right dichotomy. This has resulted in the science and scientific process being rendered irrelevant for both sides. They just pick the data that suits their own beliefs, however those belief were formed.

 

[ohmman]

And please, give the "logical fallacy" term a rest. This could be used on both sides anytime one cares to invoke it, and is therefor essentially useless, except to make yourself sound more intelligent.

This is your tactic. Do I need to go back and quote you? I'm guessing I don't. I entirely disagree it's useless. It keeps arguments to the material and away from poor logic. I'm absolutely not giving it a rest, and I hope you will do me the same favor. I'm happy to be corrected when I slip, which I'm sure I'll do.

I've explained already that you have used those terms to dismiss others, so the magnifying glass is on you to do better in order to avoid being a hypocrite. Who wouldn't want that feedback? The other people in this thread aren't beefing with me, and they never accused me of logical fallacies in my arguments.

Why no on point 2? I thought you agreed with the Curry piece.

 

[JRP3]

Just like antifa, they attack you relentlessly, and personally, just because of diversity of ideas. They are The Hive for sure.

You and your buddy keep going with the personal attacks, then complain when others reply with the same.

 

[jrad6515]

You know what I find discouraging about talking with folks like these? Just like antifa, they attack you relentlessly, and personally, just because of diversity of ideas. They are The Hive for sure.
You and I are both Tesla owners. They really don't like that because we don't believe that man made global warming is going to destroy the earth. But we have so much common ground. And they don't care. It is fascist really. You must conform 100% to their world view, or shut up and go away.
You and I both probably like the idea of solar and batteries for energy independence. So, we are basically supporting the same things as they are. Buying the same zero emissions vehicles. Supporting Tesla as a company. And yet they lash out and want us to go away. It's a groupthink that is really terrifying. This is how groups like antifa get power. They can run up and punch people while wearing masks in a mob of people wearing masks, and somehow they consider THEMSELVES the anti-fascists.

Great post. I agree with all of it!

 

[jrad6515]

More climate fraud from the alarmist “Union of concerned scientists“:

I realize that alarmist scientists committing climate fraud it is so common these days that it is not even newsworthy but I still love to throw it in the face of anti-science ideologues who believe in this AGW crap. There are certainly plenty of those misguided ideologues here!

 

[jrad6515]

But unfortunately this issue has become a left-right dichotomy.

Exactly. AGW is not a scientific issue. It is a political issue that the lefties are trying to cram down our throat with zero scientific proof.

They tried to do this with the global cooling scare back in the 70s, though on a much smaller scale. They failed miserably then and they will fail miserably this time as well.

 

[jrad6515]

I really recommend against trying to set yourself up on the argumentative high ground. You've used personal attacks repeatedly as well, and your logical fallacies don't seem to go away despite railing against others'. Your buddy is even worse, with apparently no ability for self-reflection or evaluation. His poor faith behavior here (including agreeing to join me to reproduce studies, then bailing) earned him the sole spot on my ignore list.

I apologize for being away for a day or two. We have family in town and I've also been actually working on climate policy (forcing cross-boundary emissions to be accounted for within municipal and county climate action plans). It's much more fruitful than arguing in this extremely tiny and insignificant corner of the internet. I have, however, read all of "Javier's" posts and comments on Curry's blog and have made notes. His support for Mann and others (and the heavy use of their work in his opinion pieces) makes me surprised you like his pieces, aside from the fact that they provide another piece of a multivariate explanation for climate. You do realize he thinks CO2 is the primary forcing factor and that it's 90% anthropogenic, right? I look forward to talking about that before long.

But in the meantime, we do need to get back to the consensus understanding. I promise you that I am not trying to corner you into a "gotcha." I am more curious about where your understanding or faith in the consensus breaks down, compared to where mine continues, because I think that inflection point may give us some knowledge as to what's either shaky science or just unacceptable or overly acceptable to internal hard biases from one or the other of us.

I believe when we left off, you agreed that there's a consensus on Industrial Age warming, and you join that agreement. You agreed that TOBS adjustments, and the more recent and accurate pairwise homogenization algorithms are good proxies for data adjustment. You also agreed that there's a consensus that human activity is a factor in the warming, but didn't agree with the quantifiable nature of that statement. Am I good so far?

You’re the one who bailed, dumbass. Post your “proof” and I will tear it apart. Put up or shut up. I’m getting sick of you accusing me of the same thing that you have done. Projection seems to rain supreme on this forum. Or you can just continue to be a loser who talks big but can’t back it up. Here in Texas we call your kind “all hat and no cattle“.

So where is your AGW proof, Einstein?

 

[nwdiver]

Interesting clip from PBS Eons on two 'Snowball Earth' events;

Spoiler Alert: CO2 plays a major role

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

.../ So where is your AGW proof /...

"When you are 97% certain, you are certain."

And if you are not... Then what are you???