Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Island Skeptic]

With that much hand-waving, I almost expect you to take flight.

Look, I really can't make it any simpler. You have a binary choice: (1) all the evidence demonstrating the reality of AGW is honestly in error, or (2) all the evidence demonstrating the reality of AGW is deliberately false.

So which will it be?

I hope I am not intruding here. Corsair, I have been following your comments as well as several others here & really hope you don't mind that I borrowed your very simple argument (re: the 2 questions) in a debate I am currently in. (He wont respond to those questions & I have asked twice. Not surprised....)

I'm honest enough to admit I am in no position of authority -or even basic knowledge- to argue about any scientific discipline. However, I *do* trust the global scientific community. Apparently my "faith" in science makes me appear as a "Sheeple" (don't you love that word? *groan*).

Anyway, I am not sure any of you are willing to help me out or not, but I really need some "back up" from people who are more knowledgeable.

How do you respond to dialogue such as this (this is a Facebook post, and the "person/woman" he is referring to is me. LOL):

I am taking heat lately...but so what. If you could read the posts to me... all of them, I would bet you would see the humor. One women asked why I was consumed by conpiracy... after I posted reports that the Antarctic Ice was the largest it has been in recorded history.... the reports were from NOAA, NASA and MIT. If you saw the news yesterday.... it broke stories that well respected, well credentialed scientists who disputed climate change, were threatened, fired, lost tenure, or lost research funding. This is going down. I am not consumed by it and I live a pretty happy life. I do feel compelled to publically keep an eye on things. I miss my friends, but I know they will have me back when the dust settles. I am not posting for party, money, power... I certainly don't want to be a "counter culture guru" as one women called me yesterday. I read a lot. I have since about 4 years old. I read hundreds of articles a day. I keep an eye on things. My mother raised me to think for myself, outside religion, party, race or culture ( thanks mom) so I just like to watch the big picture. This stuff is really going down. The media keeps it fragmented so we do not see all the pieces in one place. They are all there though if you can defocus and look at the big picture.
http://www.offthegridnews.com/2014/05/16/fda-to-ban-organic-farming/​

Any thoughts or tips? This guy follows Alex Jones & all kinds of other nut-jobs & although he denies being obsessed by conspiracy theories, he most certainly is (i.e. "Chemtrails," "GMO," "Big Pharma" are examples of his obsessions), but he does also post some of the same links I have seen in this thread that come from "reputable" sources & claims to be a "skeptic," but... meh...

Ah, and the other section of his diatribe (I will spare you the entirety of it):

The Antarctic Ice is at the greatest level in recorded history. ( South Pole). They are not melting. They are growing. NASA, MIT, NOAA have all commented on it. The meme going around regarding Antarctic melting and ending life as we know it is pure fear porn propaganda. There is detection of a possible new previously unknown volcanoe under the ice.... Jupiter's red spot is shrinking and other planets are warmiong and cooling ( pole depependent ) relative to our own changes. As always...I am not saying man get's to **** and piss where we eat sleep and share our beautiful earth with other loife forms... just that most of the climate change fear porn has come out of a massive push for A21. There is a deeper agenda. They are simultaneously attacking our ability to be sovereign and grow our own healthy food. People jusrt don't seem to be putting it together. To top it off, so many were so sick of the crap Bush pulled during his 8 years... that they are steadfast supporters of the current adminsitration.. and refuse to do any research outside the approved of narrative. The Antarctic is not melting.​

Can I relay a far more intelligent response to this?
I have only wanted him to answer the 2 questions Corsair keeps asking, but he wont respond to them.

 

[macdoc]

The simple answer is the Antartic is losing ice mass and that loss has been accelerating.

One of the ways the ice is lost is through accelerating flow to the sea as well as thinning.

In addition there are more complex reasons for the sea ice coverage to do with the tightening of the vortex of winds and the ozone hole and the salinity changes.

But I suggest you keep it simple and ask him why the mass loss and why it is accelerating. Say glaciers flowing faster release more ice to the sea. Keep it simple.
Some of the acceleration is astounding.

NASA West Antarctic Ice Sheet Findings: Glacier Loss ...

www.universetoday.com/.../nasa-west-antarctic-ice-sheet-finding...

by David Dickinson on May 12, 2014 ... Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica. ... Accelerating flow speeds stretch these glaciers out, reducing their weight and lifting ...

If they bring up gain in the Eastern Antarctic simply explain that that is an indicator of a warming atmosphere which carries more moisture. There are few glaciers elsewhere that are also gaining a bit for the same reason.
But the net loss globally and in Antarctica is accelerating. Period.
They have no counter to that.

 

[ABC10]

Took the "warmers" over 24 hours to pick up on Chris Pine.

 

[macdoc]

Mass loss from a different perspective

Ice-loss moves the Earth 250 miles down
Date:
May 11, 2014
Source:
Newcastle University
Summary:
Scientists have revealed that Earth's mantle under Antarctica is at a lower viscosity and moving at such a rapid rate it is changing the shape of the land at a rate that can be recorded by GPS. They have explained for the first time why the upward motion of Earth's crust in the Northern Antarctic Peninsula is currently taking place so quickly.

more

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140511214811.htm

snip

Since 1995 several ice shelves in the Northern Antarctic Peninsula have collapsed and triggered ice-mass unloading, causing the solid Earth to 'bounce back'.
"Think of it a bit like a stretched piece of elastic," says Nield, whose project is funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).
"The ice is pressing down on the Earth and as this weight reduces the crust bounces back. But what we found when we compared the ice loss to the uplift was that they didn't tally -- something else had to be happening to be pushing the solid Earth up at such a phenomenal rate.
"Collating data from seven GPS stations situated across the Northern Peninsula, the team found the rebound was so fast that the upper mantle viscosity -- or resistance to flow -- had to be at least ten times lower than previously thought for the region and much lower than the rest of Antarctica.
Professor Peter Clarke, Professor of Geophysical Geodesy at Newcastle University and one of the authors of the paper, adds: "Seeing this sort of deformation of the Earth at such a rate is unprecedented in Antarctica. What is particularly interesting here is that we can actually see the impact that glacier thinning is having on the rocks 250 miles down."

let's see......accelerating mass loss and more floating ice...those dots seem to escape some.

 

[Island Skeptic]

Thank you so much! This is still very much over my head & I feel foolish even trying to take a stance on something I know so little about. But I have such a deep respect for science & those who understand it much more than I do. So, thanks again!

 

[Reality Check]

Took the "warmers" over 24 hours to pick up on Chris Pine.

Took you a couple of hours to write a post about the fact that you made up Chris Pine, ABC10
And lie about the posters in this thread being "warmers" . Warmers generally do not reference valid climate science.
My guess - the rest of the posters suspect that you are trolling (see the insult about "warmers"). Me - I am treating you as very ignorant about climate science and even real life facts (captains control ships, not passengers!).

What has this to do with the rest of the ignorance in your post?

 

[macdoc]

Thank you so much! This is still very much over my head & I feel foolish even trying to take a stance on something I know so little about. But I have such a deep respect for science & those who understand it much more than I do.

follow some of the links in my signature - AGW is quite straight forward. The consequences however are not so straight forward.

In the case of the Antarctic tho....it is losing ice since the atmosphere and ocean are warming due to an increase in CO2.
That is easy to understand. Stick with it.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

...Antarctic Ice was the largest it has been in recorded history...​

He, or the person he gets his talking points from, is almost certainly misrepresenting or misunderstanding the reports. Antarctic sea ice is indeed increasing, but Antarctic land ice is decreasing (and at an accelerating rate).

Source: Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

The melting of land ice is significant, because that's what contributes most to sea level rise.

If you saw the news yesterday.... it broke stories that well respected, well credentialed scientists who disputed climate change, were threatened, fired, lost tenure, or lost research funding. ... The media keeps it fragmented so we do not see all the pieces in one place.​

I'm only aware of Bengtsson being the focus of recent news in that direction, so that's a possible exaggeration on his part.

Regardless, the two ideas expressed above appear to be contradictory. At the very least, it's completely unnecessary. If the media is complicit in some grand conspiracy and therefore doesn't want us to "see all the pieces in one place", why would they put any of the pieces out there for us to see? Another nonsense facet of a nonsense conspiracy theory.

The Antarctic Ice is at the greatest level in recorded history. ( South Pole). They are not melting. They are growing.​

Dealt with above.

The meme going around regarding Antarctic melting and ending life as we know it is pure fear porn propaganda.​

And his counter-argument that AGW is just a massive hoax by some mysterious cabal with an obviously nefarious agenda isn't?

There is detection of a possible new previously unknown volcanoe under the ice...​

This appears to be confirmed, but what's his point? That Antarctic ice is increasing, but if it isn't, it's because of this single volcano? More nonsense.

Jupiter's red spot is shrinking...​

Irrelevant.

...and other planets are warmiong and cooling ( pole depependent ) relative to our own changes.​

This is false. What climate change is happening to other planets in the solar system?

I notice that he says "other planets" and not "the other planets", indicating that not all of the planets are affected by whatever mechanism he believes is heating up the Earth. I'd like to hear his (or his sources') explanation for this phenomenon. And it can't be the sun, because its output has either decreased or remained steady in recent decades.

Also, I'm not sure about the "and cooling ( pole depependent )" part. It's as if he almost recognizes that other planets have seasons, too, but he just can't put 2 and 2 together to figure how that fact contributes to pole-dependent warming and cooling.

...most of the climate change fear porn has come out of a massive push for A21.​

A21? The A21 Campaign? The non-profit, non-governmental organization that works to fight human trafficking, including sexual exploitation and forced slave labor?

They are simultaneously attacking our ability to be sovereign and grow our own healthy food.​

Wait. I thought the purpose of this alleged AGW hoax was to force us all to give up our technology and live off the land like our ancestors? I'm so confused...

ETA: You may want to give him this link, if you haven't already: Global Warming & Climate Change Myths

 

[CapelDodger]

Thank you so much! This is still very much over my head & I feel foolish even trying to take a stance on something I know so little about. But I have such a deep respect for science & those who understand it much more than I do. So, thanks again!

You don't have to know much to know more than the guy you're dealing with. Regarding Antarctic ice, for instance, you know there's a difference between sea-ice and land-ice, which your denialist doesn't. The volume of Antarctic ice is falling; keep plugging away at that point.

I'm sure you're not foolish enough to follow him down the conspiracy hole, for that way madness lies. Just ignore all that and plug away at single points that you're certain of. Watch him try to Gish Gallop away then pull him up short. Pretty soon you'll find yourself on his "Ignore" list, which counts as a win .

When I first heard about AGW there was no concensus, but that was forty years ago. There's an overwhelming concensus now, and you've seen the quality of the arguments against it, not to mention the sort of people who present them.

 

[CapelDodger]

... (captains control ships, not passengers!).

Just how uneducated must one be not to know that? Yet it was all over the AGW denial world that the scientists on board bullied the crew into doing something stupid. From what I've heard about Russian sailors that was simply not going to happen.

This kind of squirrel is what they've got and they're still barking at it as we drive out of the park. That and whining about victimisation, and, of course, the ever-present conspiracy. And the mythical Pause which, in their minds, will never end. For them the future is an eternal 2011 with the AGW hoax crumbling forever around them. Such a comfort that will be.

Meanwhile much of that accelerated heat capture during the 21stCE (due to the bias towards El Nino conditions) is about to become manifest over a fairly short time-frame.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

You limited that search to climate papers, which is not Lindzen's primary field of research.

So he's a "great" climate scientists despite the fact it's not even his specialty?

No.

Who cares about his credentials on some other subject, he's being brought up int the context of climate science. His credentials in THIS topic are spotty and what he has done hasn't held up.

Thank you. Had you not attacked Lindzen's credentials in his own area of research, we would not be having this conversation.

No one is saying atmospheric science and climate science are the same thing.

Then why are we discussing it?

Because you pretended someone was saying they were the same thing.

You, however, are saying any real work he did in atmospheric science "turned out to be a dead end decades ago."

I said nothing of the sort, you were the one who want to bring up his non-climate related work.

Your words are archived. Anyone who wants to understand the genesis of this conversation can do so:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10028334#post10028334
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10028536#post10028536
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10028567#post10028567
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10028693#post10028693
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10028697#post10028697
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10029120#post10029120
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10029323#post10029323

I don't think Lindzen is a particularly relevant voice in climate science.

Then why are you attempting to defend claims that he's a "great" climate scientist who's opinion is important in the filed?

I haven't been defending that claim. That's just another of your straw men.

To defend your indefensible claim that Lindzen had never published anything of worth in any field of science, you are attacking straw men.

Funny you should mention straw men...

I said that Lindzen hasn't published anything of importance to climate science in decades and that the last work of any real interest to climate science was dismissed back in the 90's because it didn't fit the pale-climate data.

Your words are archived. Anyone who wants to understand the genesis of this conversation can do so:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10028334#post10028334
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10028536#post10028536
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10028567#post10028567
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10028693#post10028693
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10028697#post10028697
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10029120#post10029120
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10029323#post10029323

 

[DC]

I hope I am not intruding here. Corsair, I have been following your comments as well as several others here & really hope you don't mind that I borrowed your very simple argument (re: the 2 questions) in a debate I am currently in. (He wont respond to those questions & I have asked twice. Not surprised....)

I'm honest enough to admit I am in no position of authority -or even basic knowledge- to argue about any scientific discipline. However, I *do* trust the global scientific community. Apparently my "faith" in science makes me appear as a "Sheeple" (don't you love that word? *groan*).

Anyway, I am not sure any of you are willing to help me out or not, but I really need some "back up" from people who are more knowledgeable.

How do you respond to dialogue such as this (this is a Facebook post, and the "person/woman" he is referring to is me. LOL):

I am taking heat lately...but so what. If you could read the posts to me... all of them, I would bet you would see the humor. One women asked why I was consumed by conpiracy... after I posted reports that the Antarctic Ice was the largest it has been in recorded history.... the reports were from NOAA, NASA and MIT. If you saw the news yesterday.... it broke stories that well respected, well credentialed scientists who disputed climate change, were threatened, fired, lost tenure, or lost research funding. This is going down. I am not consumed by it and I live a pretty happy life. I do feel compelled to publically keep an eye on things. I miss my friends, but I know they will have me back when the dust settles. I am not posting for party, money, power... I certainly don't want to be a "counter culture guru" as one women called me yesterday. I read a lot. I have since about 4 years old. I read hundreds of articles a day. I keep an eye on things. My mother raised me to think for myself, outside religion, party, race or culture ( thanks mom) so I just like to watch the big picture. This stuff is really going down. The media keeps it fragmented so we do not see all the pieces in one place. They are all there though if you can defocus and look at the big picture.
http://www.offthegridnews.com/2014/05/16/fda-to-ban-organic-farming/​

Any thoughts or tips? This guy follows Alex Jones & all kinds of other nut-jobs & although he denies being obsessed by conspiracy theories, he most certainly is (i.e. "Chemtrails," "GMO," "Big Pharma" are examples of his obsessions), but he does also post some of the same links I have seen in this thread that come from "reputable" sources & claims to be a "skeptic," but... meh...

Ah, and the other section of his diatribe (I will spare you the entirety of it):

The Antarctic Ice is at the greatest level in recorded history. ( South Pole). They are not melting. They are growing. NASA, MIT, NOAA have all commented on it. The meme going around regarding Antarctic melting and ending life as we know it is pure fear porn propaganda. There is detection of a possible new previously unknown volcanoe under the ice.... Jupiter's red spot is shrinking and other planets are warmiong and cooling ( pole depependent ) relative to our own changes. As always...I am not saying man get's to **** and piss where we eat sleep and share our beautiful earth with other loife forms... just that most of the climate change fear porn has come out of a massive push for A21. There is a deeper agenda. They are simultaneously attacking our ability to be sovereign and grow our own healthy food. People jusrt don't seem to be putting it together. To top it off, so many were so sick of the crap Bush pulled during his 8 years... that they are steadfast supporters of the current adminsitration.. and refuse to do any research outside the approved of narrative. The Antarctic is not melting.​

Can I relay a far more intelligent response to this?
I have only wanted him to answer the 2 questions Corsair keeps asking, but he wont respond to them.

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/antarctic-ice-sheet-surface-mass-balance/

a very informative source i like on that particular topic

 

[r-j]

Look, I really can't make it any simpler. You have a binary choice: (1) all the evidence demonstrating the reality of AGW is honestly in error, or (2) all the evidence demonstrating the reality of AGW is deliberately false.

That doesn't make any sense. Your first choice says everything is wrong, but it's by error.

The second says everything is wrong, but it's deliberate.

Is that really how you see things?

 

[r-j]

You're the one who doubts the evidence, evidence (in voluminous amounts) produced by scientists from around the world over several decades.

You are obviously confused. I'm the one who keeps pointing out that the evidence is what shows the problems with current global warming theory.

I was doing this winter before last as well, noting that reality is not going along with the predictions. One of the current problems facing climate change science, and especially those who are predicting catastrophic results from global warming, is the NH winters. While it's obvious to people who live in the real world, that we have seen this trend of much worse winters of late, it's also what the scientific data shows.

It's an interesting thing, because those same people claiming disaster and rapid change already happening, either insist winters are not getting colder, or claim that colder winters are a result of global warming.

This has happened right here in this topic.

It's that sort of response from the people making claims about the future, claims they insist are based on science and evidence, that increase my skepticism of their claims. Then when I point this out, the same people who insist everything has to be based on science, engage in the most unscientific behavior, rather than have a discussion about science.

It's a science forum, and this topic is supposedly about the most important scientific issue of all time. So when a scientific fact is brought up, and there is either a blanket refusal to look at it, that's amusing. Even more so when the exact same voices who were claiming warmer winters were more proof of global warming, now want to claim global warming is causing colder winters.

But none of that is even worth discussing, when the fact of what the NH winter trend actually is can't be agreed on.

If the trend was one of warmer winters, more rain, less snow and ice, then it's understandable that one would hand wave winters away. Certainly if the trend was warmer winters, that would be thrown about as often as the decrease of arctic summer ice is.

 

[Reality Check]

I'm the one who keeps pointing out that the evidence is what shows the problems with current global warming theory.

Except you go on about "the NH winters" as if they were global winters, r-j !
And you did not present any evidence about "the NH winters" in that post or what they have to do with any problems with current global warming theory.
That evidence would be citations of predictions from the current global warming theory and "the NH winters" data that they do not match.

Where we were on 3 March 2014:

That is not quite the subject of Cohen et al(2012), r-j.
They found that there was no trend in the boreal winters that they defined as December, January and February. They found that there were some areas of colder winters and some areas of warmer winters (see figure 1c). The eastern United States, southern Canada and northern Eurasia had cooling winters, the rest warming winters.

So you need to qualify "boreal winters" to the above regions.

Also see this PDF for a good explanation.

and that paper is:
Arctic warming, increasing snow cover and widespread boreal winter cooling Cohen et al(2012)

The most up to date consensus from global climate models predicts warming in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) high latitudes to middle latitudes during boreal winter. However, recent trends in observed NH winter surface temperatures diverge from these projections. For the last two decades, large-scale cooling trends have existed instead across large stretches of eastern North America and northern Eurasia. We argue that this unforeseen trend is probably not due to internal variability alone. Instead, evidence suggests that summer and autumn warming trends are concurrent with increases in high-latitude moisture and an increase in Eurasian snow cover, which dynamically induces large-scale wintertime cooling. Understanding this counterintuitive response to radiative warming of the climate system has the potential for improving climate predictions at seasonal and longer timescales.

 

[Corsair 115]

That doesn't make any sense. Your first choice says everything is wrong, but it's by error.

The second says everything is wrong, but it's deliberate.

Is that really how you see things?

No, it's a question about how you see things. You're the one constantly posting in here about your doubts about AGW. (Can you not agree that this is so? Must we go back and cite every one of your posts where you explicitly state your doubt?)

To be technical, I suppose there is a third choice: (3) a combination of #1 and #2. Though that position to me is fraught with even more difficulty, as it now has to explain both the honest errors and the deliberate errors. Twice as much work, it seems to me.

 

[DC]

"that we have seen this trend of much worse winters of late"
yeah was much worse in my region, much warmer and no snow at all......
its indeedd getting worse.

 

[Island Skeptic]

He, or the person he gets his talking points from, is almost certainly misrepresenting or misunderstanding the reports. Antarctic sea ice is indeed increasing, but Antarctic land ice is decreasing (and at an accelerating rate).

Source: Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

The melting of land ice is significant, because that's what contributes most to sea level rise.




I'm only aware of Bengtsson being the focus of recent news in that direction, so that's a possible exaggeration on his part.

Regardless, the two ideas expressed above appear to be contradictory. At the very least, it's completely unnecessary. If the media is complicit in some grand conspiracy and therefore doesn't want us to "see all the pieces in one place", why would they put any of the pieces out there for us to see? Another nonsense facet of a nonsense conspiracy theory.




Dealt with above.




And his counter-argument that AGW is just a massive hoax by some mysterious cabal with an obviously nefarious agenda isn't?




This appears to be confirmed, but what's his point? That Antarctic ice is increasing, but if it isn't, it's because of this single volcano? More nonsense.




Irrelevant.




This is false. What climate change is happening to other planets in the solar system?

I notice that he says "other planets" and not "the other planets", indicating that not all of the planets are affected by whatever mechanism he believes is heating up the Earth. I'd like to hear his (or his sources') explanation for this phenomenon. And it can't be the sun, because its output has either decreased or remained steady in recent decades.

Also, I'm not sure about the "and cooling ( pole depependent )" part. It's as if he almost recognizes that other planets have seasons, too, but he just can't put 2 and 2 together to figure how that fact contributes to pole-dependent warming and cooling.




A21? The A21 Campaign? The non-profit, non-governmental organization that works to fight human trafficking, including sexual exploitation and forced slave labor?




Wait. I thought the purpose of this alleged AGW hoax was to force us all to give up our technology and live off the land like our ancestors? I'm so confused...

ETA: You may want to give him this link, if you haven't already: Global Warming & Climate Change Myths

I can't thank you all enough! This & other responses is extraordinarily helpful!

 

[Corsair 115]

Corsair, I have been following your comments as well as several others here & really hope you don't mind that I borrowed your very simple argument (re: the 2 questions) in a debate I am currently in. (He wont respond to those questions & I have asked twice. Not surprised....)

Borrow away! No need for credit even. Just be aware I am an amateur in debating terms compared to some of the old hands 'round here. I just try my best. If I'm making a mistake I expect it'd be corrected by someone here.

I'm honest enough to admit I am in no position of authority -or even basic knowledge- to argue about any scientific discipline. However, I *do* trust the global scientific community. Apparently my "faith" in science makes me appear as a "Sheeple" (don't you love that word? *groan*).

Personally, I'd say the moment your opponent uses that word the debate is over. No amount of rationality or reason can overcome that level of distorted thinking.

Anyway, I am not sure any of you are willing to help me out or not, but I really need some "back up" from people who are more knowledgeable.

I'd say just use all the links provided by lomiller, macdoc, Trakar, et. al. These guys know their stuff.

How do you respond to dialogue such as this (this is a Facebook post, and the "person/woman" he is referring to is me. LOL)

<snipped for brevity's sake>

Any thoughts or tips? This guy follows Alex Jones & all kinds of other nut-jobs & although he denies being obsessed by conspiracy theories, he most certainly is (i.e. "Chemtrails," "GMO," "Big Pharma" are examples of his obsessions), but he does also post some of the same links I have seen in this thread that come from "reputable" sources & claims to be a "skeptic," but... meh...

Perhaps I'm being pessimistic, but anyone with that "pedigree" is probably beyond hope. To paraphrase an old saying involving a horse, you can lead someone to the facts but you can't make them believe them.

Maybe someone else here can offer a more optimistic appraisal...

 

[r-j]

No, it's a question about how you see things.

No, it's a statement you made. You claimed there were only two choices. It;s why I asked if you really see things that way.

And you did not present any evidence about "the NH winters" in that post or what they have to do with any problems with current global warming theory.

I showed everyone the evidence multiple times. It won't matter how many times you make a flase claim like that. Your opinion won't change the scientific facts.

All the data shows a cooling trend for D-J-F in the NH hemisphere. The most pronounced winter cooling is in the exact area global warming theory predicts the most warming.

The evidence is quite clear about the current consensus models all predict warming during the NH winters. Since you think the winters are warming, you should know this.