Global warming proved to be a scam?

[HelpMePlease]

I was being totally serious when I said that and stand behind it. If most of the shit pooring out of your mouth is going to be little arguments, with no data or logic, then you need to make them backed up with data or logic for them to be worthy of me responding. You can't just pretend that you are using data and logic by only backing up your major arguments. You have to back up at least some of you're less major or minor ones.

 

[nova]

Boy, the shit that goes down when a man is busy (real busy not fake "busy" and "don't have time" where someone still has time to continually hit reply on the forums ).

Just a few points though.

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.

Proving individual points wrong is typically how you undermine an argument. I'm only attempting to show that your claims of accelerating imminent catastrophic man-made climate change are not as cut as dry as they're made out to be.

Yes the climate is changing, we know that pretty definitively from the satellite temperature data (UAH or RSS take your pick), but the models used to determine the impact by man and show imminent catastrophe are not nearly as good as they're made out to be. They treat aerosol cooling in a rather strange way and don't take into account a myriad of factors that we KNOW influence climate in addition to assuming a multitude of positive feedbacks that have not been observed.

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.

Yeah that happens from time to time at work. Some of the data I collect takes quite a while to generate. Things fluctuate especially badly around the holidays. Feast or famine as they say.

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.

Here's something for you to think about. Sometimes there simply is no real logical argument to be made. If you tell me the pan on the stove is cold, and I touch my hand to it and get burned, there's not a whole lot of logical argument that can or should be added to show the falshood of your claim.

That goes for your claims of:

1. Accelerating arctic sea ice loss. (NSICD data doesn't back it up)
2. Acclerating warming (sat temp data doesn't back it up)
3. Southern ocean warmer than normal (NOAA SST data doesn't back it up)
4. Severe weather events increasing, hurricane intensity and TX drought specifically mentioned (data shows hurricane intensity is not increasing and la nina is known for producing dry conditions in that area)

as well as others.

Exactly what logical arguments do you want? I should not have to explain why the data invalidates your claims, its far too obvious, and I'm not sure how I would add to it.

If insisting that you stick to arguments that are factually correct is nit picky, then I'm proud to be nit-picky.

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.

Put up or shut up. If you understood things so well, then show me where I used "random words that rarely made much sense." Shouldn't be hard for one so exceedingly well versed in the language as yourself.

More than likely they make no sense to you because you have no clue WTF I'm talking about. You wouldn't be the first and probably won't be the last.

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.

And the answer is still no. If you want to spout bullshit without it being pointed out, its probably prudent for you to go elsewhere. Perhaps a career in religion would suit you, wait too late, you're in climate "science" close enough...

And validation? The only validation I need is the love of my wife, everybody else, including the esteemed "internet at large" can eat shit and die for all I care. But thanks for the amateur psychoanalysis anyway. Guess we'll add that to your list of fields you're an expert in... :24: :24:

The rest of what you wrote is even more whiny superficial bullshit than what I've responded to here and not worth the dignity of a response...

 

[nova]

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.

The better question is why are you insulted by me pointing out the fact that you are in fact a child and acting like it. I never mentioned it other than to be complimentary of your well thought out arguments and to say some errors in your arguments made sense UNTIL you decided act like an arrogant brat and call me a "piece of shit."

If you want to act like a child, expect to get treated like one. If you want to be treated like an adult, start acting like one.

And it, atleast, was the truth.

So me being a "piece of shit" is truth but you being a child, which you meet the definition of, is not. That will be good to know in the future. :surrender

 

[IntruderLS1]

Here's something for you to think about. Sometimes there simply is no real logical argument to be made. If you tell me the pan on the stove is cold, and I touch my hand to it and get burned, there's not a whole lot of logical argument that can or should be added to show the falshood of your claim.

That goes for your claims of:

1. Accelerating arctic sea ice loss. (NSICD data doesn't back it up)
2. Acclerating warming (sat temp data doesn't back it up)
3. Southern ocean warmer than normal (NOAA SST data doesn't back it up)
4. Severe weather events increasing, hurricane intensity and TX drought specifically mentioned (data shows hurricane intensity is not increasing and la nina is known for producing dry conditions in that area)

as well as others.

Exactly what logical arguments do you want? I should not have to explain why the data invalidates your claims, its far too obvious, and I'm not sure how I would add to it.

Ouch...

Would that be considered an Extintion Level Event? :nod:

Show's over folks. Argument over. :jk

 

[Goat Whisperer]

I'm sorry, but first off, I'm not reading Nova's posts, because I'm done with him (still not actually making an argument, as he has nothing to prove) but I will respond to the that Intruder just quoted. Just because they weren't backed up, by those very very specific groups, it doesn't automatically make them wrong.

And once again, didn't Nova JUST say that he wasn't arguing that ice was melting? Just one little bit of ice, like in the arctic or something, that I apparently, at one point did? Wtf is the point of arguing this. Just tell me. I mean, what is he trying to prove? You are trying to prove me wrong, I know that, but what does that prove? Proving one person wrong certainly will never prove man made climate change wrong. And he's not even proving me wrong, just making me appear proved wrong with ungrounded nitpickey comments--that sound smart.

But he has said himself, the climate is changing. It is getting warmer, ice is melting. So obviously, he is wasting his time debating those arguments, and wasting my time too. He has agreed with me on all the main arguments throughout this debate, because we have discussed little about Human Effect on climate change--which is where our opinions seem to differ. He has just made nitpickey comments here and there, to try and slightly discredit what I am saying, even though he knows the majority of it is true.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Proving individual points wrong is typically how you undermine an argument. I'm only attempting to show that your claims of accelerating imminent catastrophic man-made climate change are not as cut as dry as they're made out to be.

Here is what proves everything I have been saying about Nova right. He is uncapable of debating that man made climate change is wrong, so he is simply trying to undermine me, which, in his mind, some how discredits the entire argument of anthropogenic climate change.

 

[Alien Allen]

I love skepticism. Having both sides of an opinion is vital, so we can come up with the most balanced conclusion and solution.

What I don't like is confirmation bias and stubbornness.

This has to be the funniest bullshit I have seen in a long time :24::24::24:

You are so friggin biased you would not know an ice cube from an ice burg

All you know is that they eventually melt

Damn that mankind anyway :24:

 

[nova]

Here is what proves everything I have been saying about Nova right. He is uncapable of debating that man made climate change is wrong, so he is simply trying to undermine me, which, in his mind, some how discredits the entire argument of anthropogenic climate change.

JFC, I honestly don't get why this is so hard for you to understand. There are areas in which we agree and there are areas in which we disagree. I'm stipulating as to the areas in which we agree and attempting to present my case for the areas in which we don't.

You're position appears to be:

1. Climate is changing.
2. Humans are the primary driver.
3. The changes are getting worse faster.
4. The result will be catastrophic fairly soon
5. We must do something about it now.

If I'm wrong please tell me.

My position is that

1. Climate is changing
2. Humans are having impact, the magnitude of which is uncertain at this point
3. The changes are happening at a steady rate
4. The result will not be catastrophic anytime soon.
5. We can wait and get a better handle on things before we take mitigation steps


Thats the WHOLE FUCKING REASON I'm pointing out certain inaccuracies in your statements. Those inaccuracies are the one's that, while they certainly don't negate point 1 above, they don't fall in line with points 2-5 which are our areas of complete or partial disagreement.

I will respond to the that Intruder just quoted. Just because they weren't backed up, by those very very specific groups, it doesn't automatically make them wrong.

Unless you have proof that the data provided by those groups in inaccurate, thats a piss poor argument to be making as those groups are some the primary one's either conducting climate research or being relied upon as data sources by other researchers. You start attacking those as inaccurate and you'll do a better job undermining AGW than I ever could or would.

He has agreed with me on all the main arguments throughout this debate, because we have discussed little about Human Effect on climate change--which is where our opinions seem to differ.He has just made nitpickey comments here and there, to try and slightly discredit what I am saying, even though he knows the majority of it is true.

To be one so obsessed with "the big picture" you sure don't seem to get the role details play in "the big picture." This goes back to what I first said above. The majority being true is what lets us agree on point 1 above, the details (the stuff you call nitpicky) is where our disagreements in points 2-5 lie.

First you complain about not talking about the human effect and then you complain about me being "nit-picky" because I'm bringing up details that fall under that umbrella. You seriously need to make up your mind about what you really want to talk about. :24:

And since you're so intent on ignoring it

Quote:
Originally Posted by HelpMePlease
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.

Put up or shut up. If you understood things so well, then show me where I used "random words that rarely made much sense."

 

[edgray]

I think we should all listen to Sarah Palin. She's fully qualified on this subject, because she can, umm, see weather from her house...

Boycott Copenhagen | Sarah Palin | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

 

[edgray]

On a more serious note, this thread has changed from being about GW and more onto debating itself.

Let's bring it back around. Everyone down tools and read this:

The climate denial industry is out to dupe the public. And it's working | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

At the end of the day, these emails are nothing compared to the lies and tricks the denial industry (funded by, quel surprise, big industry polluters) has been using for over a decade to try and debunk genuine scientific work.

GW is happening, hacked emails or not. The scientific consensus is that this is man-made.

 

[Alien Allen]

Yes, yes

anything to indicate there is bullshit going on with the climate control crowd is being a denier

if there is any denying going on it is with the climate control crowd.

They are like a spoiled child. They want it their way period and there is no reasoning otherwise. They play with the facts as much as the deniers. Only they consider themselves holier than thou. If they were so fucking holy they would not have been playing tricks with data and keeping anything to refute their stance out of their reports.

This is NOT a crisis. But they sure as hell want to make it into one.

Tell me one thing that is going to occur that will really reduce global warming these idiots are trying to jam down our throats? There may be problems but they are not of an emergency nature and NOTHING proposed is going to do a damn thing other than to piss away our money because until you get China , India and a few other countries to sign on it is like trying to get rid of roaches with tweasers.

 

[edgray]

do you care for the planet?

 

[Burntblood]

The Earth's going to go through warming and cold trends regardless of human interference.
It always has and it always will.

 

[edgray]

But this time human interference is causing a warming period. This has been known for quite sometime now.

 

[dt3]

But this time human interference is causing a warming period. This has been known for quite sometime now.

Prove that it's due to human interference and prove that it's NOT because of a naturally occuring process.

 

[edgray]

prove that it's not down to man made pollution. Prove to me that all the CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere has no effect on our environment and it's climate.

 

[dt3]

prove that it's not.

Wrong, that's not how it works. You have a theory about why the earth is warming, you have to prove it.

 

[edgray]

its not my theory, it's a scientific consensus.

 

[Alien Allen]

its not my theory, it's a scientific consensus.

that is bullshit

just spewing the climate control crowd rhetoric

 

[Alien Allen]

do you care for the planet?

no I want to destroy it and leave nothing behind