Global warming proved to be a scam?

[nova]

Nova, this is why I hate debating with people like you. You are nitpickey little pisses of shit.

Well, the child shows through eventually doesn't it. How about you grow up just a tiny bit?

What you hate is having to defend your position and having to be questioned. Like so many other immature children you want to walk in and state what you "know" without answering any critical questions.

No one cares about at least 80% of the points you are making becuase if you look at the big picture they don't mean anything.

Apparently you don't quite understand how the pieces of the puzzle effect the big picture. Its a problem to miss the forest for the trees, but you damn sure better know what kind of trees they are before you sell the forest to the sawmill...

You're trying to win a debate, not bring new points to the table or discuss climate change. And as long as you're doing that, I am not going to take the time to respond half as well as I can.

If you don't wish to discuss the magnitudes, effects and ability/cost/benefit of mitigation with someone who believes 100% both in the existence of and in a contribution by man, the WTF exactly are you going to discuss?

Climate change is happening. Yep sure is. Most definitiely ***lather, rinse, repeat***

This is why I haven't wanted to debate with you since this thread started. I don't like you're through process of "Prove the debater wrong, I am right about everything"

Then quit if you think you've proved your point. If someone is holding a gun to your head making you hit reply, then please tell me where you are located RIGHT NOW. I promise I will send help ASAP.

Quoting everything I say and making ungrounded remarks is just annoying to me. I don't respond, because it's just a waste of time. I have seen everything you are saying 300 times before, and I just don't have the energy to continue to full heartedly debate back.

No whats annoying you is the fact that I insist your statements are accurate and not talking point hyperbole.

Stop and think about this for one second. I'm sitting here telling you I believe in climate change 100% and that humans are having an impact 100% but am skeptical on the details of the magnitude, effects, and what if anything we could or should do about it, and you're going apeshit over it, throwing out hyperbole and patently, provable false statements in order to try and make your point.

Just go away. I only respond to you because I have been having an interesting discussion with others in this thread that I wanted to keep going. but you are just a complete and total waste of time--sorry.

And you are an arrogant child who can't see beyond her own nose. Apparently your idea of "interesting discussion" is having people pat you on the head telling you how smart you are and how right you are.

Maybe one day you'll grow up a bit and you can converse with adults in a respectful manner.

And if you continue to mock me and try to force me to type of half assed responses that I know can easily be torn down--I'll simply put you on ignore.

An arrogant know it all child will ignore me, whatsoever shall I do :24:

Take for example, the fact that you attacked me for saying that 'arctic sea ice is decreasing.'

Even if it isn't, what do you prove about climate change by proving that it isn't? The majority of ice is still dissapearing--so for the big picture, climate change, it doesn't matter.

The "big picture" claim as you like to call it, is that climate change is spiraling out of control. If the effects (like arctic ice decline) are not accelerating, how can the climate itself be?

The answer is, it can't and the big picture you have in your mind, is flawed. Maybe not flawed much, but still flawed. If enough of the puzzle pieces are different, it sure changes the "big picture" now doesn't it...

You only responded that to attack the debater, not the debate, and therefore I see no reason to respond.

You get where I am coming from yet? When I debate with people like you, half of what I read is a waste of time.

I see exactly what you're saying. You don't want to have to defend your position from any critical questioning or insistence that your statements be accurate. You're gonna have a damn lot of fun once you reach college because those cranky old tenured professors, aren't about to take any shit off a snot-nosed 18 year old or anyone else for that matter.

Maybe this is where you being a teenager comes in, but the debate is not just about climate science. Its a debate of climate science as it applies to public policy and you simply can't see that.

 

[nova]

Wish you had read my post before you spent all that time writing that.

And I wish you would stop acting like a brat but you know, wish in one hand and shit in the other, see which fills up first... :24:

 

[Goat Whisperer]

It's because you're criticical questions are simply to try and prove me wrong, and give yourself a sense of satisfaction--not to prove anything against climate change or hold an analytical discussion of how climate change should 'apply to public policy'.

I told you I'm not here to debate, and being nit picky about everything I say, simply to try and make me look stupid, so people assume I am wrong: is a debate tactic.

You only back up your major arguments with data or deep logic. Most of the time when you respond with your millions of nitpickey comments, your just saying I am wrong, with technical words, and resorces you don't link too. How can you possibly expect me to respond to this? Especially when it's 80% of what your saying?

And lastely, this thread is geared towards debating the existence of man made climate change. Not what we should be doing about it. So if that's what you want to be debating, then go start your own damn thread on it. If you're not debating that, then all you are here to do is prove every point I have wrong, but mostly you are doing this in your head, because you're points simply aren't valid, and I just don't have the energy to try and prove ungrounded points wrong.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Stop blaming this on my age.

You can only be young once, but you can be immature forever.

 

[nova]

It's because you're criticical questions are simply to try and prove me wrong, and give yourself a sense of satisfaction--not to prove anything against climate change or hold an analytical discussion of how climate change should 'apply to public policy'.

Really. I'm so glad I have you here to tell me what my intent is. I don't know how I'd ever know that without you. :24:

Every single solitary issue that I've brought up with your statements, plays directly into the public policy debate because they all get directly to the core of some of the major claims of the proponents of imminent catastrophic climate change.

I told you I'm not here to debate, and being nit picky about everything I say, simply to try and make me look stupid, so people assume I am wrong: is a debate tactic.

No, demanding accuracy in your statements is a way to have a reasonable discussion. Its pretty much the only way to have a reasonable discussion. If you, I or anyone else just gets to sit around telling "sea stories" then what we're discussing really has no meaning because its all quite literally bullshit....

You only back up your major arguments with data or deep logic. Most of the time when you respond with your millions of nitpickey comments, your just saying I am wrong, with technical words, and resorces you don't link too. How can you possibly expect me to respond to this? Especially when it's 80% of what your saying?

Resources I don't link to? I guess thats what all those images of sea ice extent, SST, la nina effects, videos, etc etc were. I'll have to keep in mind that those are unlinked resources and pure bullshit from now on :thumbup

As far as anything about feedback loops and complex systems, well, I can't teach you non-linear feedback control systems, partial differential equations or anything else like that in an internet posting. I thought you were well versed in these directly applicable elementary areas and didn't need me to spell things out for you letter by letter. I guess I was wrong and that whole "lack of education" thing really is significant drag...

And honestly, if someone is full of shit, its typically easy to prove them wrong. So crying about how "I just can't do it, its too hard" is a cop out...

And lastely, this thread is geared towards debating the existence of man made climate change. Not what we should be doing about it. So if that's what you want to be debating, then go start your own damn thread on it.

No I don't think I will. The OP is a pretty good acquaintance of mind and I'm pretty sure he likes having these points raised in his thread. Retro can certainly chime in if I'm wrong. :thumbup

If you have a problem with the direction the discussion has gone, then I'm sure you know your way out. Just like you want to quit talking to about all this but yet continually hit reply, I'd doubt it will make much difference.

In any event, the last thing that will happen is you dictating to me where the discussion will or will not go. It is what it is and goes where it goes.

If you're not debating that, then all you are here to do is prove every point I have wrong, but mostly you are doing this in your head, because you're points simply aren't valid, and I just don't have the energy to try and prove ungrounded points wrong.

"You're wrong because I SAY so. NYAAH!." Its quite funny that despite your above request that I "link to sources" for concepts I shouldn't have to link to for one so deep in the subject, that you can sit there and claim to know my points aren't valid. Its the equivalent of saying "You're wrong because I SAY so. NYAAH!.

Its aslo troublesome that one so young is continually lacking in energy. Perhaps you should see a doctor about that. Maybe take some B12 and iron....

Stop blaming this on my age.

I'll make you a deal. Stop acting like a child and I'll stop pointing it out. :thumbup

At first you were acting more reasonable than a lot of adults I know and I'm sure you can again if you try hard enough.... :thumbup

You can only be young once, but you can be immature forever.

I'm so terribly hurt being called immature by a child. Maybe next you can call me a "doody head" to get your points across... :24:

 

[nova]

And you know whats really, just exceedingly funny. Its the fact that you can't see the parallels between the half-truths, distortions and outright falsehoods that you've been pushing in this thread and the one's perpetrated by the ClimateGate Crew referenced in the OP.

Its very telling about the state of "climate science" that has trained you. Accuracy and precision don't matter, the ends justify the means, just make people toe the line and believe.

And people wonder by the credibility of climate science in general sucks....

 

[Guyzerr]

You only back up your major arguments with data or deep logic.

Did I read this right GW? You just shot both your feet. :24:


Damn.... Nova you're good. :clap

 

[Goat Whisperer]

And you know whats really, just exceedingly funny. Its the fact that you can't see the parallels between the half-truths, distortions and outright falsehoods that you've been pushing in this thread and the one's perpetrated by the ClimateGate Crew referenced in the OP.

Its very telling about the state of "climate science" that has trained you. Accuracy and precision don't matter, the ends justify the means, just make people toe the line and believe.

And people wonder by the credibility of climate science in general sucks....

i don't even understand what you have been tryign to prove anymore, everytime I ask, you say you're not trying to prove anything... except my points wrong.

You stand for nothing, but your a good debater. So good for you, you will accomplish nothing, but look good doing it.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

And by the way--the only reason why you 'look good' is because you apparently have the time to quote every single one of my sentences and respond to it.

Just because you have the time to waste, here, in this thread, giving off nitpickey responses to everything I say, it doesn't mean you have good points, that I can't respond to, in a better way, or all together. Just numerous, pointless ones, I don't want to respond too.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Resources I don't link to? I guess thats what all those images of sea ice extent, SST, la nina effects, videos, etc etc were. I'll have to keep in mind that those are unlinked resources and pure bullshit from now on :thumbup

How many of these stupid little responses have you made? Probably hundreds by now. How many of them have had real logic and data behind them--zero to none.

That's because they are stupid, little nit-picky comments, you simply don't need to be making.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

And if you're the almighty mature 'adult' why is it that you have personally insulted me several more times then I have you? In fact, I have only insulted you once. And it, atleast, was the truth. How can you possibly say you're not being nit pickey? I would have no problem debating with you, but you are obviously responding to every single one of my sentences, because you think it makes me look wrong. And to debate you, I would have to respond back to gain any chance of looking like I know what I talk about. But it's incredibly annoying to do so, because I know it's a total waste of time. It is. All of your stupid little nit pickey arguments are ungrounded. You have had a few main ones that had graphs and links and logic, but the millions of little ones were ungrounded, short ones, with little to no logic.

by a child.

Stop acting like a child

And I wish you would stop acting like a brat

An arrogant know it all child

And you are an arrogant child who can't see beyond her own nose.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

No I don't think I will. The OP is a pretty good acquaintance of mind and I'm pretty sure he likes having these points raised in his thread. Retro can certainly chime in if I'm wrong. :thumbup

I'm sure he wouldn't have any issues. Only--I would think it's more likely because he is you're friend, not because he agrees with you.

 

[JanieDough]

Not in the least. Any argument I dismiss will be because its factually incorrect.

Aside from the issues I've identified in prior post, her arguments are very well put together and I agree with most of them. On top of that, she's one of the more well written teenagers I've come across in a while. If I had to give a recommendation based on what she's written here, I'd say to go into some field of science because I think she's got a knack for it. :thumbup

The few conceptual issues just didn't make sense until I realized she was in HS. Up through high school, science is pretty much taught as relatively simple cause/effect relationships. In the real world, there are only a few relationships that are that simple. These days the bulk of science is determining nuances of the complex relationships and which factors can or should be ignored.

Ultimately the debate over climate change and its effects stems from the investigation of these nuances and what the overall interaction is.

Take the arctic ice issue I pointed out where the wind is disturbing the ice causing it to retreat. The simple cause/effect says that if the temp is above freezing, ice will melt, therefore retreating arctic ice is a sign of warming. The more complex answer takes into account the fact there are sublimation effects that vary with sunlight intensity, variations in ocean currents, variations in wind patterns, variations in precipitation patterns and many more factors along with variations in temperature. One or all of those factors can be whats causing the variation in ice extent, and typically its a combination.

Age only plays in because you just don't get to the level where the concepts of complex interaction are explained till at least college (unless you happen to be some child prodigy enrolled in a VERY good magnet school). Honestly thats a sad testament to our school systems because we could very easily get kids a position to be learning these things in high school. :thumbdown

Cool. I'm glad some one disregards age and looks at the post as coming from an equal...at least until they read the post

Breathe of fresh air.

 

[Peter Parka]

You only back up your major arguments with data or deep logic.

:24::24::24::24::24::24:

That's sig worthy!

 

[dt3]

I'm going to take a quick opportunity to point out the Debate Section rules.

Just remember this is the debate section and people aren't gonna have your same views on certain matters. This is an "ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK" Area. It is fine to argue, however, we do NOT agree with Name calling! So, If you get pissed at someone from arguing with you, don't retaliate by calling them names. That is wrong. We are all adults here, lets handle ourselves in that same manner.

And that's all I'm going to say about that before warnings and infractions come down.

 

[HelpMePlease]

:24::24::24::24::24::24:

That's sig worthy!

Well, when someone only has very few main arguments (like 5), and the rest of what they are posting are stupid, little, pointless, arguments (like 75) then they should be backing up at least some of them without data or logic. Which he is not.

My point was, I don't have to respond to these arguments until he makes them into actual arguments with data or logic.

(My account's not working lol hence the name....)

 

[HelpMePlease]

Cool. I'm glad some one disregards age and looks at the post as coming from an equal...at least until they read the post

Breathe of fresh air.

Then they are of course cool to start name-calling based on age. :thumbdown

 

[Peter Parka]

You only back up your major arguments with data or deep logic.

My point was, I don't have to respond to these arguments until he makes them into actual arguments with data or logic.

(My account's not working lol hence the name....)

:24::24::24::24::24::24:

Anyway, good luck sorting your account out and I hope your goats are keeping well. :thumbup

 

[HelpMePlease]

Listen guys. What's going on here is very simple.

Nova, here, has a low self-esteem. He can only seem to validate himself, by proving others wrong, especially in places like here, in debate.

He called me out on my age, to make me look too young to be capable of having better arguments. He responded to every single word of mine, to make it look like he was 'smarter' so he could make a rebuttal to all my arguments--although most people, including me, didn't even care to read these rebuttals, but it would still make him look smarter. He responded to arguments, that he even he agreed with, just because he could make them, and me look wrong, when obviosly they weren't because he agreed with them. He simply wanted to prove me wrong. He used complex language and random words that rarely made much sense--because if you didn't understand them, it made him look incredibly intellgent, unless of course, you understood him.

What this all adds up to, is some guy who wanted to win a debate, so he could feel smarter and more validated then me. But that's not what I am here to do. I have nothing to prove to him or to anyone else. The only reason why I participate in these kinds debates, is because it exposes me to new arguments I haven't heard of before, which I like, because it's chance for me to research and learn more about climate change. And because there are many people that are not actively engaged in these kinds of debates, who are reading on the side, who are, some for the first time, learning about climate change. And it's important to me that the anthropogenic global warming side is as well represented as the skeptical side--so when they decide their opinion, it's unbiased, and has at least some open-minded thoughts towards my side of the debate.

Nova is here for a different reason then to represent the skeptical side. He said himself he wasn't here to do that. And so obviously, he is here to do one thing: Prove me wrong. And I have already explained why.

This is the exact reason why I haven't wanted to debate Nova since the beginning. But it's hard to completely ignore one persons arguments, especially when they rebuttal everything you say, and it makes you seem incapable to those who are reading on the side.

I have wanted to debate other people's arguments. Which is why I continued to hit reply. And why I asked Nova to just stop and go away. Which is what started him on his name-calling spree, because he knows I was calling him out for doing exactly what he was doing, and he wanted to hold on to at least one sliver of validation.

 

[Peter Parka]

To be fair, I dont personally like the way Nova has responded to you here, you had a great debate going on which was way over my head :willy_nilly:and that stuff from him kind of put a dampner on this thread somewhat. However that has nothing to do with me and is between you, him and the mods if it gets that bad. It was fucking funny how you owned yourself then, though. Dont worry, I stick my foot in my mouth plenty of times on here, dont worry about it and move on, its not the end of the world. :thumbup