Global Warming---Oops!!

[USincognito]

So much for proving the thinning of ice due to global warming

Plagiarism, sourced, false dilemma, irony, straw man, blacklisting, global...

To which we can add glaicial and sea ice...

And what's the matter, can't address the actual temperatures and record warming in those posts?

 

[USincognito]

Unexpected means it wasn't predicted

And "unexpected in spots" doesn't mean a continent wide prediction,

 

[USincognito]

Makes you wonder why the scientist picked that tiny spot to examine thinning ice

Maybe you should have read more than one sentence of the blog entry. He explains why metling from the Mertz glacier would lead to more sea ice and that ice was effected by the winds.

 

[USincognito]

Why bring Eric Erickson's remarks into this thread?

Poisoning the well ... or is there a legitimate reason?

Says the guy who constantly brings Al Gore up when some of us are trying to have a discussion of the science.

 

[AFM]

Couldn't you just post it all once? Like, quote people in 4 windows and then copy the quotes into one post? Also, apparently there's record cold in Minnesota right about now. Skin freezes in 10-15 minutes. Hasn't been cold like this since 1996.

Hm... Global warming...

 

[USincognito]

I think it's pretty clear at this point that certain posters are more interested in poking fun at liberals than they are about learning the science.

Spot on. Though you have to wonder how much is infantile mockery and how much is an actual lack of scientific understanding. When it has to be pointed out repeatedly that local is not global and glacial ice is not sea ice, there's only so much childish obstinacy up to which you can chalk their immunity to facts.

 

[AFM]

Yes, but global implies the whole world. Local is part of global. And whether it's glacial or sea ice, both should be melting since it's global warming.

If it's global but doesn't apply to certain localities, it's not global. It's semi-global.

 

[USincognito]

You do realize that 'Global Warming' has to do with the entire planet, right? Not just the land? That's what Global means. Global Peace would be Peace on the entire planet, not simply the land of the planet.

Maybe you should address that to our resident deniers. They're the ones having the most trouble grasping the concept.

 

[USincognito]

Do you understand the difference between the land and the sea?

Do you understand the difference between thinning ice and expanding ice?

Which ice? You do realize there is a difference?

That's so the global warming religionists can claim global warming whether the ice is thinning or expanding

Are you going to answer the question or not?

 

[MachZer0]

And "unexpected in spots" doesn't mean a continent wide prediction,

That's because global warming is isolated to spots?

 

[USincognito]

That's because global warming is isolated to spots?

Plagiarism, sourced, false dilemma, irony, straw man, blacklisting, global, glacial vs. sea ice, temperatures...

 

[USincognito]

No, when I mentioned the THREAD I meant a THREAD, not a post

Then why don't you link to it champ?

Still waiting for a link to that "THREAD" there champ.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Yes, but global implies the whole world. Local is part of global. And whether it's glacial or sea ice, both should be melting since it's global warming.

If it's global but doesn't apply to certain localities, it's not global. It's semi-global.

Indeed ... although some might quibble semantics like between semi-global or quarter-global.

In any case, your point seems to be lost to global warming alarmists.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Which is today already. US icebreaker to rescue Chinese and Russian ships in Antarctica | South China Morning Post

It's also worth noting that the Coast Guard rescue ship en route is a much smaller vessel than the Chinese ship. Apparently, the Chinese ship has been able to create a small lake-like area in the ice but, according to the article is still 20 kilometers from open water.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Spot on. Though you have to wonder how much is infantile mockery and how much is an actual lack of scientific understanding. When it has to be pointed out repeatedly that local is not global and glacial ice is not sea ice, there's only so much childish obstinacy up to which you can chalk their immunity to facts.

It's both. I've got family members who lack scientific understanding and, thus, espouse many of the denialist views, but they don't just openly ignore information when it's in front of them. The individuals to which I was referring start with a lack of scientific understanding (though I'm sure many of them are smart enough to understand if they wanted to), and build their infantile mockery from there.

What I don't get is why they think it's fun or funny. I like mocking people as much as anyone, but doing so in a way that makes me look like an imbecile seems a bit counter productive. Maybe the guilty parties don't have the level of self-awareness needed to recognize when they're making themselves look like imbeciles?

 

[1Sam15]

It's both. I've got family members who lack scientific understanding and, thus, espouse many of the denialist views, but they don't just openly ignore information when it's in front of them. The individuals to which I was referring start with a lack of scientific understanding (though I'm sure many of them are smart enough to understand if they wanted to), and build their infantile mockery from there.

What I don't get is why they think it's fun or funny. I like mocking people as much as anyone, but doing so in a way that makes me look like an imbecile seems a bit counter productive. Maybe the guilty parties don't have the level of self-awareness needed to recognize when they're making themselves look like imbeciles?

Totally agree. I love to be snarky and rude when it is called for, but for some of the posters on these threads it seems that the funny ha-ha mocking springs from a deep well of ignorance.

And the more it is pointed out to them the more snarky they get.

Ultimately it almost always ends up with diatribes against "elitists" (ie people who bothered to get an education in science).

This followed about a week later by yet another of the same type of pointless thread being started requiring the EXACT SAME TYPE OF IGNORANCE that we debunked on the earlier thread.

The fact that they really think they are "insightful" is a prime example of being blinded by one's pride.

 

[NightHawkeye]

It's both. I've got family members who lack scientific understanding and, thus, espouse many of the denialist views, but they don't just openly ignore information when it's in front of them. The individuals to which I was referring start with a lack of scientific understanding (though I'm sure many of them are smart enough to understand if they wanted to), and build their infantile mockery from there.

What I don't get is why they think it's fun or funny. I like mocking people as much as anyone, but doing so in a way that makes me look like an imbecile seems a bit counter productive. Maybe the guilty parties don't have the level of self-awareness needed to recognize when they're making themselves look like imbeciles?

Calling others imbeciles is really in poor form, Iluvatar.

If you're so smart as you claim, all you need to do is refute any posting with erroneous information. It's not complicated.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Totally agree. I love to be snarky and rude when it is called for, but for some of the posters on these threads it seems that the funny ha-ha mocking springs from a deep well of ignorance.

And the more it is pointed out to them the more snarky they get.

Ultimately it almost always ends up with diatribes against "elitists" (ie people who bothered to get an education in science).

This followed about a week later by yet another of the same type of pointless thread being started requiring the EXACT SAME TYPE OF IGNORANCE that we debunked on the earlier thread.

The fact that they really think they are "insightful" is a prime example of being blinded by one's pride.

What education in science do you possess, since you brought it up?

 

[NightHawkeye]

The fact that they really think they are "insightful" is a prime example of being blinded by one's pride.

Right back at you, Sam.

With your vast trove of superior knowledge ... you should be able to convincingly win the argument on merit alone. Consider trying that instead of being "rude and snarky", as you say.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Calling others imbeciles is really in poor form, Iluvatar.

Acting like an imbecile is poor form, too. But I don't see you correcting anyone on that front.

Regardless, I didn't call anyone in particular an imbecile. I was describing a practice which makes the practitioner look like an imbecile.

If you're so smart as you claim, all you need to do is refute any posting with erroneous information. It's not complicated.

It's not complicated, but it's also (as we've seen) not particularly fruitful. That information is obviously going to be ignored. I was participating in the light bulb thread, the details of which are considerably easier to understand and verify than practically anything related to AGW, and yet, despite repeatedly showing certain claims to be wrong, some posters still insisted on repeating those debunked claims. If people can't even be bothered to learn the facts on something so simple as that, why would I expect them to take the time to understand something like climate science that's so much more complicated? If people want to be lazy and juvenile, that's their business, but I see no reason to waste my time like all of the other people who've been participating in the AGW threads. I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase "casting pearls before swine."