Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?

[erfalf]

Wow!   So now following the very next step of Fake Fox News - when there is no reply beyond the first sound bite, resort to name calling..!!   You got it mastered !!

And calling ME a child molester...wow!  That is a new low on this board.

So you misread my post (I didn't call you a child molester) and you complained about my complaining about your name calling. Got it.

[heironymouspasparagus]

So you misread my post (I didn't call you a child molester) and you complained about my complaining about your name calling. Got it.

Projection, distortion, dissemination, Fake Fox News Method.

[erfalf]

Projection, distortion, dissemination, Fake Fox News Method.

Misquote, misdirect, and misunderstand, the heir method.

You know exactly what I meant back there, and you completely misinterpret it so you can play the victim. It's a lame play.

I know why you do this. It's what you do when you are either too lazy or unable to refute anything i actually say. So fake news, just like the president does, which is what I know you understood it to be.

[TheArtist]

Extreme heat swelters southern Australia
Sydney has endured its hottest temperature in nearly 80 years,


http://www.cnn.com/videos/weather/2018/01/07/australia-sydney-hottest-day-van-dam.cnn   

[Red Arrow]

Extreme heat swelters southern Australia
Sydney has endured its hottest temperature in nearly 80 years,


http://www.cnn.com/videos/weather/2018/01/07/australia-sydney-hottest-day-van-dam.cnn   

So that's where our warm air went last week.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Misquote, misdirect, and misunderstand, the heir method.

You know exactly what I meant back there, and you completely misinterpret it so you can play the victim. It's a lame play.

I know why you do this. It's what you do when you are either too lazy or unable to refute anything i actually say. So fake news, just like the president does, which is what I know you understood it to be.

Yeah...the heir method - to not give anyone a pass on their Projection, distortion, dissemination, Fake Fox News Method, Misquotes, Misdirection, and intentionally misunderstanding.  That's why I keep calling BS on it.  Especially when it is from someone who certainly has the mental horsepower to know better.

You have been thoroughly refuted, repeatedly - and certainly not just by me.  It is your tap dancing all around your support of President Pedo and his criminal minion associates that is making you dizzy.  If you weren't so busy trying to spin and justify your ongoing support of Trump and all his criminal activities, it wouldn't make you so confused.  But that's ok...I just saw a confederate flag on a pickup truck a few minutes ago so I know his supporters are still out there in force.

[erfalf]

Yeah...the heir method - to not give anyone a pass on their Projection, distortion, dissemination, Fake Fox News Method, Misquotes, Misdirection, and intentionally misunderstanding.  That's why I keep calling BS on it.  Especially when it is from someone who certainly has the mental horsepower to know better.

You have been thoroughly refuted, repeatedly - and certainly not just by me.  It is your tap dancing all around your support of President Pedo and his criminal minion associates that is making you dizzy.  If you weren't so busy trying to spin and justify your ongoing support of Trump and all his criminal activities, it wouldn't make you so confused.  But that's ok...I just saw a confederate flag on a pickup truck a few minutes ago so I know his supporters are still out there in force.

You don't have to throw hissy fits in public you know.

And talk about projection. All his supporters are redneck confederate flag toting types. Come on. What would you say if I said something like all Bernie supporters were hipster dufusas. You would excoriate me, and rightly so. Well consider this your comupens for acting the way you say you deplore.

[heironymouspasparagus]

You don't have to throw hissy fits in public you know.

And talk about projection. All his supporters are redneck confederate flag toting types. Come on. What would you say if I said something like all Bernie supporters were hipster dufusas. You would excoriate me, and rightly so. Well consider this your comupens for acting the way you say you deplore.

No hissy fit - just stating the facts.  But nice attempt at projection there.


The confederate flag supporters are just one group - not the only one - he has a much wider base!  He also has the Fascist Fanboy Club... Nazi's.  The Ku Klux Klan.  The John Birch Society.  And the intellectually dishonest.  And the morally bankrupt.  Probably NAMBLA, but haven't heard a public statement by them about it yet - no doubt they will just as a professional courtesy!

Who did I miss?   Who else would be a Trump fan??


Oh, yeah... Climate Deniers!!   Almost forgot them.

[patric]

The confederate flag supporters are just one group - not the only one - he has a much wider base!  He also has the Fascist Fanboy Club... Nazi's.  The Ku Klux Klan.  The John Birch Society.  And the intellectually dishonest.  And the morally bankrupt.

Who did I miss?   Who else would be a Trump fan??

Zealots like this one, going to trial for making death threats to an airline passenger:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/david-clarke-facebook-taunts-trial_us_5a515d3be4b003133ec85026

[cannon_fodder]

This is why people dismiss science deniers: no matter how patiently, how well cited, how much detail, or how many times someone may explain the conclusions to them - it doesn't matter.

The evidence was dismissed by saying "other evidence exists" and when I asked for more detail the best I got was someone saying "my uncle looked into it one time."  Repeatedly ranting that you don't like the findings isn't persuasive. Saying that there are things you can't be bothered with that probably disagree isn't persuasive.  Either you do not believe the conclusion because of valid reasons and evidence which you can articulate, or you simply don't believe it have have no justification.

Thus far, no one has provided justification.  After dozens of pages of discussion, no reasonable justification for denying the science.  Yet the science deniers love to proclaim that the scientific conclusion is an unsupported dogma?

[heironymouspasparagus]

This is why people dismiss science deniers: no matter how patiently, how well cited, how much detail, or how many times someone may explain the conclusions to them - it doesn't matter.

The evidence was dismissed by saying "other evidence exists" and when I asked for more detail the best I got was someone saying "my uncle looked into it one time."  Repeatedly ranting that you don't like the findings isn't persuasive. Saying that there are things you can't be bothered with that probably disagree isn't persuasive.  Either you do not believe the conclusion because of valid reasons and evidence which you can articulate, or you simply don't believe it have have no justification.

Thus far, no one has provided justification.  After dozens of pages of discussion, no reasonable justification for denying the science.  Yet the science deniers love to proclaim that the scientific conclusion is an unsupported dogma?

It's what I go on about all the time.

Also why we have a Flat Earth Society in existence...still.  Mostly tongue in cheek, but there are those that believe it.

[TeeDub]

Climate change happens.   Regardless of human interaction that is a fact.

What is not really arguable is that CO2 levels are higher now than ever before in recorded history (and that, through ice sampling, goes back a LONG way.)  Also not arguable is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  Without pointing to specific causes/cycles/etc., logic dictates that, while CO2 levels are high, more heat should be trapped in the atmosphere.

What we really need is a workable solution that doesn't involve just the US shutting down coal plants.   Coal is still HUGE in other countries and that won't change anytime soon.  

In the meantime I will continue to eat meat, drive my old car, and fly when I need to.   I will however try to turn off the lights when I leave the room, plant a tree (for your tomorrow), set the thermostat back a degree or two and hope that somewhere, someone dreams up a workable solution.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Climate change happens.   Regardless of human interaction that is a fact.

What is not really arguable is that CO2 levels are higher now than ever before in recorded history (and that, through ice sampling, goes back a LONG way.)  Also not arguable is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  Without pointing to specific causes/cycles/etc., logic dictates that, while CO2 levels are high, more heat should be trapped in the atmosphere.

What we really need is a workable solution that doesn't involve just the US shutting down coal plants.   Coal is still HUGE in other countries and that won't change anytime soon.  

In the meantime I will continue to eat meat, drive my old car, and fly when I need to.   I will however try to turn off the lights when I leave the room, plant a tree (for your tomorrow), set the thermostat back a degree or two and hope that somewhere, someone dreams up a workable solution.

You said;


"What is not really arguable is that CO2 levels are higher now than ever before in recorded history (and that, through ice sampling, goes back a LONG way.)"

AND

The way it has come about is directly OPPOSITE the way any rise in CO2 has occurred in past history - going back a LONG way!   This is the part of the discussion that should give great pause. 



It's a much bigger deal than whether the lettuce/tomato/onion go on top of the hamburger patty or underneath...  And even that has major ramifications - those things should be on the bottom- if the hamburger is cooked properly.

[erfalf]

This is why people dismiss science deniers: no matter how patiently, how well cited, how much detail, or how many times someone may explain the conclusions to them - it doesn't matter.

The evidence was dismissed by saying "other evidence exists" and when I asked for more detail the best I got was someone saying "my uncle looked into it one time."  Repeatedly ranting that you don't like the findings isn't persuasive. Saying that there are things you can't be bothered with that probably disagree isn't persuasive.  Either you do not believe the conclusion because of valid reasons and evidence which you can articulate, or you simply don't believe it have have no justification.

Thus far, no one has provided justification.  After dozens of pages of discussion, no reasonable justification for denying the science.  Yet the science deniers love to proclaim that the scientific conclusion is an unsupported dogma?

I think the point I was making (that I thought was clear) was that other theories don't necessarily exclude the generally accepted theory of agw. My thought is that multiple forcings are at play, and in reality that seems pretty justified considered how often we discuss how important wind currents, ocean currents, cloud cover, etc, etc, etc are when it comes to climate.

This is why "deniars" are so impatiant, because they get misunderstood for the most part, because any time an agw proponent reads anything other than the fact that Co2 is the sole force that causes warming/cooling/side waysness, they do this.



The door swings both ways I'm afraid. Unsurprisingly no one likes being told they are wrong. And in this case in particular, I think there are a lot of people that are right about a lot of things, just that hardly any of them understand that they can all be right at the same time.

[swake]

I think the point I was making (that I thought was clear) was that other theories don't necessarily exclude the generally accepted theory of agw. My thought is that multiple forcings are at play, and in reality that seems pretty justified considered how often we discuss how important wind currents, ocean currents, cloud cover, etc, etc, etc are when it comes to climate.

This is why "deniars" are so impatiant, because they get misunderstood for the most part, because any time an agw proponent reads anything other than the fact that Co2 is the sole force that causes warming/cooling/side waysness, they do this.



The door swings both ways I'm afraid. Unsurprisingly no one likes being told they are wrong. And in this case in particular, I think there are a lot of people that are right about a lot of things, just that hardly any of them understand that they can all be right at the same time.

No. In this case on one side there is there is broad, strong scientific consensus of the experts in the field and on the other side we have nonsense denials largely funded by the fossil fuel industry.