How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Link?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82417

Rainfall in most of Australia is falling due to climate change.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3425778#post3425778

Where I live climate change seems to be real. Australia is the 'canary in the coal mine', since most of it is desert, with the vast majority of the population clinging to the coast. The South East, as predicted, is experiencing a shift to drier conditions.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63119

Scientists wrong on Greenhouse Warming, Again.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...7-1702,00.html

Quote:

AUSTRALIA'S rapid climate change had caught scientists by surprise, a leading water expert said today.
Professor Peter Cullen, from the National Water Commission, said experts had expected the changes, which have left much of the country suffering drought conditions, but thought they would take much longer to take effect.
"I don't think any of us expected the climate change we have experienced over the last five years. I was expecting climate change but I was expecting it to take 30 years," he said.
Prof Cullen said Australia was drying out quickly and with water restrictions already in place in many areas, governments needed to consider all available options, such as recycling and desalination, to prevent an impending water crisis.



Yes, they underestimated it by a long way.

This is Capel Dog at his finest moment....he sees proof of AGW in his garden! :

As a gardener I've watched climate change by its effects, and the change haven't slowed during this century. No matter how often I'm told that's down to measurement errors, I'm not going to buy it. My jasmine has just started flowering, and it's not a winter jasmine. I've had to cut back my avocado tree because it was in danger of blowing over. Welcome to the new normal.

I can bet you can rationalize your denial of the quotes.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Individual weather events nor not proof positive or negative for AGW. It is possible, however, to make conclusions about climate from a data-set of weather events. The difference is key, and it seems to be the one you are missing.

The fact that it is colder than usual in place X is, on its own, irrelevant. No theory of global warming posits warm weather everywhere, all the time. Find me a link to anyone, here or elsewhere, who has said that is does.

You keep pushing the strawman? Well, please first show me a link where I say that theory of global warming posits warm weather everywhere or STFU.

 

[volatile]

You keep pushing the strawman? Well, please first show me a link where I say that theory of global warming posits warm weather everywhere or STFU.

Well, excuse me for concluding that you disagreed with me when I said

You do realise that global warming does not, in any way, shape or form, equal "hot weather everywhere, don't you?

and you responded

Classic, can I borrow your quote for my list? that's the usual evangelist response for cooling.

.

That certainly reads to me like you are disagreeing with my statement that " global warming does not, in any way, shape or form, equal "hot weather everywhere", especially as it follows from this exchange:

Don't know if this is true or not, but I just read an article that said the recent weather in the UK has taken a turn to quite cold. That the Artic ice is back to winter normal levels. Etc.. That's also due to Anthropogenic Global Warming.......don't you know?

Don't say things you don't mean, because they're there for everyone to see.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

I was saying that that's the usual evangelist response for cooling somewhere, wich is true.
Now can you point me where I said that Global Warming means warming everywhere?

 

[volatile]

I was saying that that's the usual evangelist response for cooling somewhere, wich is true.
Now can you point me where I said that Global Warming means warming everywhere?

It's the usual response because it's true! That objection, and your contempt of it, is analogous to being contemptuous of people always saying "up" when asked what the opposite of down is.

If you have a problem with the statement, it seems logical to conclude that you do not agree with it. The statement was "global warming does not, in any way, shape or form, equal "hot weather everywhere", thus disagreeing with it implies you believe the opposite.

If you don't believe that, do not imply that you do. It makes you look foolish.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
I was saying that that's the usual evangelist response for cooling somewhere, wich is true.
​

It's the usual response because it's true!

Thanks for confirming the existence and behavior of "global warming evangelists".

 

[volatile]

Thanks for confirming the existence and behavior of "global warming evangelists".

It is true that global warming does not posit warm weather everywhere. This has nothing to do with whether global warming theory is correct.

What was that about evangelism, Haze?

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
I was saying that that's the usual evangelist response for cooling somewhere, wich is true.

Originally Posted by volatile
It's the usual response because it's true!

Originally Posted by mhaze
Thanks for confirming the existence and behavior of "global warming evangelists".

Originally Posted by volatile
It is true that global warming does not posit warm weather everywhere. This has nothing to do with whether global warming theory is correct. What was that about evangelism, Haze?

I agree with you about:

• global warming evangelism exists
• the usual evangelist response for cooling - due to global warming
• global warming evangelism has nothing to do with whether global warming is correct.

Are you a global warming evangelist?

 

[volatile]

I agree with you about:

• global warming evangelism exists

How do you define "evangalism"?

the usual evangelist response for cooling - due to global warming

The usual response to people claiming that locally cool weather undermines the AGW hypothesis is to point out that the AGW hypothesis does not posit hot weather everywhere. This is the usual response because it is true. Can I make that any clearer for you?

global warming evangelism has nothing to do with whether global warming is correct.

Not what I said. What I said was that pointing out that the AGW does not say it will be hot everywhere has nothing to do with the veracity of the hypothesis. It's just setting fire to your straw.

Are you a global warming evangelist?

How do you define "evangalist"? I am certainly convinced that a) the earth is warming and b) that this warming has a significant anthropogenic component.

Until you can prevent evidence to the contrary (which, dear boy, you have spectacularly failed to do in any of your posts), this will remain my position. I follow the evidence, and the evidence is in.

You can be wilfully ignorant and bury your head in the sand all you want, but don't expect the rest of us to join you.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

It's the usual response because it's true! That objection, and your contempt of it, is analogous to being contemptuous of people always saying "up" when asked what the opposite of down is.

If you have a problem with the statement, it seems logical to conclude that you do not agree with it. The statement was "global warming does not, in any way, shape or form, equal "hot weather everywhere", thus disagreeing with it implies you believe the opposite.

If you don't believe that, do not imply that you do. It makes you look foolish.

Ok I'll have to do it in baby steps for you.

1.- Everybody agrees that GW doesn't mean Warimng everywhere all the time.
2.- When is hot somewhere, AGW evangelists claim that it's due to AGW.
3.- When is cold somewhere, AGW evangelists throw the usual response you gave me.
THAT WAS MY POINT.

 

[TrueSceptic]

It's puzzling, ain't it?

Now, the same person shrieking in here about his/her list of things we rational thinkers think about what they think is the same one who does not understand what I wrote, but continues to shriek that I must play his game with this list.

Why do they act like that? Extra chromosome?

Tokie

Another one for the list.

AGW Believers don't just speak: they are usually shrill, and often shriek.

 

[TrueSceptic]

How do you define "evangalist"? I am certainly convinced that a) the earth is warming and b) that this warming has a significant anthropogenic component.

How To Be a Global Warming Evangelist

 

[mhaze]

How To Be a Global Warming Evangelist

HA!

A cookbook approach!

(beware! the ingredient are .... ???? )

 

[CapelDodger]

This is Capel Dog at his finest moment....he sees proof of AGW in his garden! :

I can bet you can rationalize your denial of the quotes.

Demonstrating another common GW Sceptic trait : Whine about what people will do before they do it, in case they don't and a whining opportunity is lost.

You seem to have inadvertently posted on the wrong thread.

 

[ArmillarySphere]

I agree with you about:

• global warming evangelism exists
• the usual evangelist response for cooling - due to global warming
• global warming evangelism has nothing to do with whether global warming is correct.

Are you a global warming evangelist?

(my bolding)

That's where you went wrong. Local cooling is not in conflict with GW, whether you put an A in front of that or not.

 

[mhaze]

(my bolding)

That's where you went wrong. Local cooling is not in conflict with GW, whether you put an A in front of that or not.

Look, it would be unfair for me to lead you on inappropriately. This thread and it's partner are a joke. These are to gather the things that seem illogical that people say about AGW. Go back and review it a bit. If you want to actually discuss the science, that is running in another one....

Here is where you come up and offer on a plate the most ridiculous thing you've ever heard a believer say.

Now I am sure you will not disagree that we have to include the vein of comment "Well of course it's cooling because there is Global Warming" in the (satirical) thread. Well, even in you don't agree it ain't going away.

 

[TrueSceptic]

HA!

A cookbook approach!

(beware! the ingredient are .... ???? )

Err, what?

'How To Be A Whatever' is not a cookbook?

 

[Hindmost]

6.5 billion people on this planet use 450 quads of energy each year—most of it from fossil fuels. The projections are for population to increase to about 9 billion people by 2050. To completely dismiss the probable affect on the planet with “tis but a scratch” is intellectually vacuous. Yet, this is what is happening with anyone that denies the human race can influence the planet ecology and climate. Where is the tipping point—10 billion, 20 billion people burning fossil fuels? 2.5 billion on planet earth still use wood as their primary fuel.

Any reference to short term local weather changes or the 70s global cooling “consensus” is equally intellectually dishonest. There was no “consensus” in the 70s that the planet was cooling as it wasn’t even prominent on scientific radar. Chlorofluorocarbons and pollution dominated that era. The slide rule was still leaving its legacy. The best 70s technology cannot be compared current supercomputers climate models, modern satellite instrumentation and modern analytical methods. Science has revision and refinement at its heart. The effects of global warming on regional weather will surely be revised significantly in the future.

Consider what would turn a person’s perspective. If drastic climate changes occur in the next few decades, would that convince the anti-AGWists? Or would they blame it on natural earth cycles? Many would just blame god, but most will face the desert sand and insist it was natural.

Single volcanic eruptions have caused measurable and sometime lasting effects on global climate. The “year without a summer” is a prime example. It is certain that the human race has had at least the power of a volcano or two or more to influence global climate.

Being skeptical of global warming is reasonable…but the skepticism must be reasonable too.

glenn

There are about 400 vineyards in England...again.

 

[CapelDodger]

6.5 billion people on this planet use 450 quads of energy each year—most of it from fossil fuels. The projections are for population to increase to about 9 billion people by 2050.

That's not my favoured projection, for what that's worth. I doubt we can maintain what we've already got for much longer, let alone see an increase.

Being skeptical of global warming is reasonable…but the skepticism must be reasonable too.

glenn

I'm beyond being sceptical of the idea that a fossil-fuelled industrial society will have an impact on climate, given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There will be consequences.

GW Scepticism is mostly about believing that there might not be consequences.

There are about 400 vineyards in England...again.

There were over 300 when Henry 8 made his lasting impression on the monastic world. Back in the Little Ice Age. It wasn't climate that almost did for English wine-production, it was politics.

In the GW Sceptic mindset everything in history is caused by (and thus evidence of) climate change, and at the same time climate change is inconsequential. That ain't reasonable scepticism, IMO .

 

[Hindmost]

That's not my favoured projection, for what that's worth. I doubt we can maintain what we've already got for much longer, let alone see an increase.

The energy projections are actually more daunting. And the US govt. thinks most of the increase will be from oil. Its ridiculous

I'm beyond being sceptical of the idea that a fossil-fuelled industrial society will have an impact on climate, given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There will be consequences.

GW Scepticism is mostly about believing that there might not be consequences.



There were over 300 when Henry 8 made his lasting impression on the monastic world. Back in the Little Ice Age. It wasn't climate that almost did for English wine-production, it was politics.

In the GW Sceptic mindset everything in history is caused by (and thus evidence of) climate change, and at the same time climate change is inconsequential. That ain't reasonable scepticism, IMO .

I happen to agree that fossil fuels will cause warming issues. I just don't believe we can really quantify it well right now. What I see from Anti-AGW people is just total denial--without the possibility that humans could possibly affect the climate. I just don't understand that--it carries no logic considering the amount of energy used.

glenn

I was under the impression that the vineyards were essentially gone by 1800s due to mainly climate changes--guess I need to research more.