The religion of Man Made Global Warming saga continues...

[amanuensis63]

Ahh ... an appeal to consensus opinion. Good luck with that argument here, Amanuensis.

LOL. Yeah, right.

Feel free to articulate your un-articulated point at any time ... if you can. I won't hold my breath.

I already did but maybe the wording wasn't simple enough for you.

I made the point that climate change can destroy a civilization. Doesn't matter if it is man made or natural. It can do that.

Now since we are undergoing MANMADE climate change that just means WE will be at fault.

Do I need to draw funny cartoons for you? Or will this be good enough?

(Again, I can't help but notice YOU are the only person on here who had no idea what I was getting at. But then we BOTH know what you were doing, don't we? )

 

[amanuensis63]

Please provide information showing that "consensus" is now, or has ever been, a scientific method. Thanks in advance.

Wow. You really look at this stuff like a junior high kid who was just introduced to "The Scientific Method", don't you?

OK, here's how it works (look out, there's a lot of LOGIC involved so it might take you a couple read throughs):

A good hypothesis is NOT developed through consensus.
But a good hypothesis will likely generate a consensus.

Do you understand that? It's kinda subtle! It's like saying "The bible wasn't written to make people feel good. But it can be expected to make people feel good because it was written."

If I look at a room full of people who understand a given post and ONE who doesn't, is it rational to assume that the one who doesn't is the smartest guy in the room or not?

 

[NightHawkeye]

LOL. Yeah, right.



I already did but maybe the wording wasn't simple enough for you.

I made the point that climate change can destroy a civilization. Doesn't matter if it is man made or natural. It can do that.

I understood that. I took no issue with it.

Now since we are undergoing MANMADE climate change that just means WE will be at fault.

Tell me how accurate the predictions have turned out so far. Thanks in advance.

Do I need to draw funny cartoons for you? Or will this be good enough?

Multi-media presentations are good.

(Again, I can't help but notice YOU are the only person on here who had no idea what I was getting at.

You keep saying that as if it were true. That's OK, the more you repeat the false claim the more people will believe it. Right?

But then we BOTH know what you were doing, don't we? )

More importantly ... we ALL know what you have been doing, don't we?

 

[Loudmouth]

Please provide information showing that "consensus" is now, or has ever been, a scientific method. Thanks in advance.

You also ignore the science of the greenhouse effect that has been derived through the scientific method.

 

[amanuensis63]

Tell me how accurate the predictions have turned out so far. Thanks in advance.

Which predictions would you like to talk about specifically? Tell me which SRES family and specific SRES you'd like to tackle.

You do know what I mean when I refer to SRES's, right? I mean you ARE familiar with the science of global climate change right?

When you grow up and get a big boy job you'll find that animated gifs don't express points very effectively. Certainly not in an adult situation.

You keep saying that as if it were true. That's OK, the more you repeat the false claim the more people will believe it. Right?

No, you didn't get my point. That is why you raised an objection. Your objection only showed how much you failed at grasping a simple, simple point.

More importantly ... we ALL know what you have been doing, don't we?

We aren't talking about me. We're talking about you. And we all know how you LOVE to derail threads by mischaracterizing what other people say and pulling people into your little rabbit holes.

There's a reason you only talk about AGW on the POLITICS forum. Because you wouldn't be able to handle it on the PHYSICAL SCIENCES forum. That would require factual information that you can't just spin spin spin.

AGW isn't politics, NHE. But you are. I suspect that's about ALL you are.

 

[amanuensis63]

You also ignore the science of the greenhouse effect that has been derived through the scientific method.

I doubt they "ignore" it so much as have no earthly idea how detailed this SCIENCE actually is. Most of them have no idea the idea of greenhouse gases goes back 150 years. LOL. I bet most of them have never heard of Fourier or Tyndal. And for them Arrhenius is only something think about when Google is around. Then they invariably find some ad hominem. Most of them don't know the central role Arrhenius plays in physical chemistry or rate kinetics that underlie most of how chemistry works.

It's hard to "Debate" people so abysmally ignorant but it must be done. Otherwise they will think their "ignorance" is wisdom.

And like the dog returning to his vomit, well, you know the rest.

 

[brewmama]

Let's see. The CMIP5 models underestimated Antarctic sea ice, and were pretty accurate about Arctic sea ice.

A. How does this one model system translate into "the models"?
B. How does being right for the Arctic and off for the Antarctic translate int "dismally wrong"?
C. That paper shows that Arctic sea ice has been in steady decline over the last 35 years so I don't see how that's helping the "AGW is a hoax" side.

You obviously missed the point that we were talking about Antarctica.

 

[brewmama]

You also ignore the science of the greenhouse effect that has been derived through the scientific method.

Which has less of an effect than you seem to think it does.

Which predictions would you like to talk about specifically? Tell me which SRES family and specific SRES you'd like to tackle.

You do know what I mean when I refer to SRES's, right? I mean you ARE familiar with the science of global climate change right?
When you grow up and get a big boy job you'll find that animated gifs don't express points very effectively. Certainly not in an adult situation.
No, you didn't get my point. That is why you raised an objection. Your objection only showed how much you failed at grasping a simple, simple point.

We aren't talking about me. We're talking about you. And we all know how you LOVE to derail threads by mischaracterizing what other people say and pulling people into your little rabbit holes.

There's a reason you only talk about AGW on the POLITICS forum. Because you wouldn't be able to handle it on the PHYSICAL SCIENCES forum. That would require factual information that you can't just spin spin spin.
AGW isn't politics, NHE. But you are. I suspect that's about ALL you are.

Your snarky arrogant attitude does not become you. All the early climate scientists were not concerned with global warming, just preventing ice ages. Their was quite a bit of skepticism of them too. For example, Arrhenius had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid.

The telling point of the AGW scare tactics was a result of this:

"American scientists enjoyed massively increased government funding, notably from military agencies. The officials were not aiming to answer academic questions about future climates, but to provide for pressing military needs. Almost anything that happened in the atmosphere and oceans could be important for national security."
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Suddenly it became a problem.

 

[NightHawkeye]

It's hard to "Debate" people so abysmally ignorant but it must be done. Otherwise they will think their "ignorance" is wisdom.

Feel free to engage in substantive debate at any time, Amanuensis. Your persistent name calling isn't a convincing argument when your opponents have provided substantive arguments.

And like the dog returning to his vomit, well, you know the rest.

Well, if it feels to you like you're returning to your vomit, then perhaps you might want to reconsider your position. Just sayin ...

 

[wing2000]

Hmmm, he mentions terrorism, he lists climate change as one thread of many we face. He enumerates the reasons why climate change will effect the mission of the Coast Guard that these soon to be ensigns will be dealing with.

Here, here...you're not supposed to look up the transcript and read what the POTUS actually said. That ruins all of Nighthawke's fun...

 

[NightHawkeye]

Here, here...you're not supposed to look up the transcript and read what the POTUS actually said. That ruins all of Nighthawke's fun...

Speaking of looking up, your quote doesn't seem to appear within this thread. What is the relevance?

 

[AirPo]

Feel free to engage in substantive debate at any time, Amanuensis. Your persistent name calling isn't a convincing argument when your opponents have provided substantive arguments.

Well, if it feels to you like you're returning to your vomit, then perhaps you might want to reconsider your position. Just sayin ...

 

[amanuensis63]

Feel free to engage in substantive debate at any time, Amanuensis. Your persistent name calling isn't a convincing argument when your opponents have provided substantive arguments.

I have but it's over in the SCIENCE section mostly. That's why you have no idea about any of it. I've also done some here on this board but again, since it usually involved TECHNICAL DETAIL you likely have no idea it's there.

Well, if it feels to you like you're returning to your vomit, then perhaps you might want to reconsider your position. Just sayin ...

And you prove the proverb again. I am glad you have returned to your old way of twisting other people's posts. Like the dog to his vomit.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I have but it's over in the SCIENCE section mostly. That's why you have no idea about any of it. I've also done some here on this board but again, since it usually involved TECHNICAL DETAIL you likely have no idea it's there.

Thank you for the admission that you aren't interested in engaging in substantive discussion on this forum.

And you prove the proverb again. I am glad you have returned to your old way of twisting other people's posts. Like the dog to his vomit.

You seem upset with your own words, Amanuensis.

 

[AirPo]

Thank you for the admission that you aren't interested in engaging in substantive discussion on this forum.

You seem upset with your own words, Amanuensis.

Someone seems upset with Amanuensis's words, but it's not Amanuensis.

 

[amanuensis63]

Your snarky arrogant attitude does not become you.

Oh, so it's snarky and arrogant to expect you skeptics to actually KNOW the science against which you "debate"?

Their was quite a bit of skepticism of them too. For example, Arrhenius had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid.

OF COURSE HE DID! He came up with the hypothesis in 1898! Sheesh! Do you folks expect scientific ideas to come fully formed? You really DON'T understand science!

Arrhenius should have been skeptical of his hypothesis! That's how science works. The skepticism actually kept up for more than 30 years until Callendar started talking about it in the late 30's. But in the 1950's and 60's Roger Revelle started really digging into it an raising it as a topic of interest.

Why do you think more than 60 years of independent scientists all over the world would come to similar conclusions?

If you think it's "money" you are grossly mistaken. Scientists don't make that much money and if someone could soundly disprove the concept it would be an amazing career-making step.

If I could soundly disprove nearly 3 centuries of Thermodynamics I would be the most famous scientist on earth.

How 'bout if the skeptics on this board explain how the laws of Thermodynamics are a big hoax to us.

 

[amanuensis63]

Thank you for the admission that you aren't interested in engaging in substantive discussion on this forum.

Like a dog to his vomit! You keep coming back to your old tricks! "I'm glad we agree..." and all the other variants where you would intentionally misrepresent other posters points.

Love it! I suspect the mods must have taken you to task for a while on this but you just can't keep away from the old tried and true trolling techniques.

A gem. Slurp, slurp, slurp.

 

[AirPo]

Oh, so it's snarky and arrogant to expect you skeptics to actually KNOW the science against which you "debate"?

Snarky is the new uppity.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Like a dog to his vomit! You keep coming back to your old tricks! "I'm glad we agree..." and all the other variants where you would intentionally misrepresent other posters points.

Love it! I suspect the mods must have taken you to task for a while on this but you just can't keep away from the old tried and true trolling techniques.

A gem. Slurp, slurp, slurp.

LOL ... You say I misrepresent. You call me a troll. You spew insults at everyone you disagree with ...

... yet you claim that spewing stream of ejected matter belongs to others?

 

[DaisyDay]

Your snarky arrogant attitude does not become you. All the early climate scientists were not concerned with global warming, just preventing ice ages. Their was quite a bit of skepticism of them too. For example, Arrhenius had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid.

Wow, you didn't even bother to change the wording - plagiarism much?