Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[aleCcowaN]

Wow. If someone can parse this response to my question into comprehensible language, I'd appreciate it ...

Going up-thread, aleCccowan seemed to imply that persons not concerned with AGW are amoral. I am trying to get confirmation that that is in fact his postion.

Play the fool if you like, and also continue to use the DSo account if you like.

About """amoral""", like Íñigo Montoya said "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means". There's clearly no relation between amorality (real meaning) and concern or not about GW, so I can't imply what is not logically possible.

If you are trying to start a new discussion in this thread, don't twist my words. Be straight and present your subject.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Here's a question: what do you mean by ignorance? Let me rephrase it: suppose one is a…say…basic particles physicist. Poor guy (don't jump, all applies equally to the ladies) doesn't possess a clue about climate sciences. This guy hears about all the GW debate and gets curious. He reads a book or two, googles around some, watches 2-3 TV shows, watches this Nobel laureate - Oskar winner 's film and concludes that GW might be real but, to his liking, there is not enough evidence to support a notion that the anthropogenic component has significant enough roll in GW. Remember, he does not have MSc. in climate, however he can recognize scientific reasoning and evidence should such be presented. Would you let him "have a say" on the AGW/GW debate or you would call him names (ignorant, immoral…)? Attention: I am not asking whether you agree with this guy or not.

Your "scientist" seems not to be a scientist. How come she or he has likings but no methodology? A real person who really fitted your description would have found in her/himself the reason of the insufficient evidence and wouldn't participate in the debate, or better said, she or he would follow the debate, ask questions now and then, avoiding to disrupt the debate.

 

[BenBurch]

What nonsense. Nobody is forcing you, or anyone else to use fossil fuels, or find solutions to your problem. Crying that some vast conspiracy is preventing you from going off fossil fuels is as woo woo as it gets.

That is intellectually dishonest, and you KNOW it.

 

[CapelDodger]

Some people are so stupid. I say the last two weeks have been unusually cold, and they then act like somebody claimed the whole winter was cold.

What you actually said was :

It's more likely most people are sick and tired of the snow and cold, and with more to come this weekend, it's hard to be that concerned over the imagined disaster coming.

"Sick and tired" after just two weeks? At least now we know how short a timescale you view the world on (quite apart from thinking "people" means you and your neighbours and assuming we'd think the same; you might consider expanding your horizon on that count as well).

Then they quote old articles on winter temperatures, instead of looking at the facts.

Again with the short timescale, last winter being so ... well, last winter, and now it's early spring.

I would educate you, but it won't matter. Faith isn't swayed by facts.

On what other than fath do you base your belief that there are no disasters to come from AGW? There's a difference between projected disasters and merely imagined ones. Later you claim to have recognised the dangers long ago, so presumably you think that your own efforts are going to avert them. Again I would suggest you expand your horizons. I'm not going to tell you to, of course; it's hardly my place to order people around.

 

[CapelDodger]

Anyone who pretends to anywhere-near understand the global climatic system, with its trillions of simultaneously changing and interacting organisms, systems, sub-systems, micro-climates, cycles, patterns, feedbacks, variables, trends, external factors etc.. etc.. is just full of ****.

As they would be in a century from now.

On that basis, any proper skeptic should rightly be focusing attention on the political/economic decisions derived from such a basis of ignorance, and simply asking cui bono?.

Would you mind telling us what conclusion (tentative or not) you arrive at when consider that question?

Personally, I don't pretend to understand the global climate system, I do understand it. I don't know precisely the impact of AGW on every specific location, but I do understand that river deltas will shrink with rising sea-levels, that lots of people live in them, and that warmer oceans will expand. I even understand why water expands when it heats up (I learnt that at school).

I understand some of the feedbacks, such as water vapour (positive) and melting permafrost (positive). I understand why the Hadley cells will expand and what that means for regions such as the Mediterranean and Southern Africa.

I understand why people can take comfort in denial of all sorts of things, and why they sometimes remain deliberately ignorant of the subject in hand so that they can maintain that denial. I understand why they might invent mysterious forces (perhaps terming them "feedbacks" if that serves their case) which will prevent unwanted consequences. I even understand why some people will feed their need (self-aggrandisment and/or profit usually). Even you can surely understand why vested interests seek to preserve the economic and social status quo.

What I don't claim to know is what drives your peculiar denial. Perhaps you could enlighten us? Or not, whatever; we can always draw our own conclusions (tentative or otherwise).

 

[DSo]

Play the fool if you like, and also continue to use the DSo account if you like.

About """amoral""", like Íñigo Montoya said "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means". There's clearly no relation between amorality (real meaning) and concern or not about GW, so I can't imply what is not logically possible.

If you are trying to start a new discussion in this thread, don't twist my words. Be straight and present your subject.

Your original post implied that only those on a particular side of the issue were moral. If I miss-understood your words, then I stand corrected. Other than that thanks for the feedback!!

 

[a_unique_person]

Here's a question: what do you mean by ignorance? Let me rephrase it: suppose one is a…say…basic particles physicist. Poor guy (don't jump, all applies equally to the ladies) doesn't possess a clue about climate sciences. This guy hears about all the GW debate and gets curious. He reads a book or two, googles around some, watches 2-3 TV shows, watches this Nobel laureate - Oskar winner 's film and concludes that GW might be real but, to his liking, there is not enough evidence to support a notion that the anthropogenic component has significant enough roll in GW. Remember, he does not have MSc. in climate, however he can recognize scientific reasoning and evidence should such be presented. Would you let him "have a say" on the AGW/GW debate or you would call him names (ignorant, immoral…)? Attention: I am not asking whether you agree with this guy or not.

Would you let a proctologist do your open heart surgery?

 

[a_unique_person]

We did have a physicist recently berate the climate scientists over poor science for several years. He did at least have the guts to do his own temperature record, unlike most critics who simply hurl abuse and do nothing positive. When he had finally finished the temperature record, it was pretty well exactly the same as the temperature records of all the climate scientists he had been so critical of for all those years. You would think he would have at least apologised, and the temperature record would no longer be a matter of debate. But no, the deniers still deny, and hurl abuse.

 

[r-j]

Oh this says quite well what I have observed over the last few years.

We agree completely, except for the "climate denier" term. No one objects to the abstraction "climate" or to the assertion that climate changes over time. Here: "The clear distinction between a scientist and a climate denier (or indeed anyone who has pre-decided what they want) is that the scientist needs very good reasons for discarding or selecting data whereas the denier just needs to know what result they want" we agree completely. We just differ as to which people these words describe.

Like what we saw in the last few days. I answered the unscientific musings about why the topic was dead, by joking that maybe everybody was stuck in the snow and cold up north. (and as I type the snow is still coming down)

You can see the response to that. which wasn't basded on science, or even data.

Then I pointed out winters have been trending down, and we see unscientific comments, including denial of the records.

When I show how the last few weeks have been record cold, more denial. That winters have turned really cold, and the trend is colder winters, isn't in dispute. Yet we see denial here over it.

Or, if it's impossible to deny, then the "deniers" start saying it was global warming that caused the cold.

Shameless, and not scientific. It's not hurting the climate skeptic, it's hurting the credibility of real climate science. I am concerned that the more strident and alarmists climate boys are poisoning the well, or whatever it is when you ruin any chance for the real dangers of climate change to be heard.

Or acted upon. The lunatics seem to drown out the real science. That is a bad thing for science.

 

[r-j]

The unscientific continues.

Of course the science is being ignored. By the deniers.

That harsh winter that we are experiencing, it is not proof that global warming is not happening, but rather serves as proof that it is indeed happening, and even a bit faster than we might like to think.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Global-Warming-Cold-Winters.html

Climate change brings colder winters to Europe and Asia

The world is warming, so why have winters been getting colder across much of Eurasia?

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/52135

Cold Winters Driven By Global Warming

http://news.discovery.com/earth/cold-winter-snow-weather-global-warming-101222.htm

Cold Winters Caused by Warmer Summers, Research Suggests

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9084487#post9084487

Warmer summers cause colder winters, scientists say
Looking temperature and snow and ice data, researchers found that higher summer temperatures in the Arctic meant more moisture in the air, leading to more snowfall.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/cl...r-summers-cause-colder-winters-scientists-say

More snow, especially early in the fall, has a feedback effect where the white snow reflects the sun, causing faster cooling, which leads to more snow, and the snow doesn't melt, so we get this amplification and it gets colder.

Colder, not warmer. And it is the warmer summers, and declining sea ice that may be causing the early snow.

So global warming has been making the winters colder (a clear trend), especially in February, which shows the most drastic decline of average temperatures. While this was obviously missed by almost every climate expert, a few have been predicting this. For decades.

Now that everybody knows it's happening, the climate experts are now switching, and publishing about how global warming is causing colder winters.

The sad thing is how this is being used to say all climate predictions mean nothing, when in fact it is how science advances. Once you know your theory is wrong, you change it.

That is science. Not denial of what is being observed.

Which is why the poor fool who still insists winters are warming is the real denier.

 

[r-j]

The colder winters were obvious in Florida, since hard freezes damage trees and crops, and the deaths of uncounted palms and other tropical trees is impossible to ignore. The sad thing is the new hardiness charts had come out, abut it is based on up util 2005 data, so they thought the warm period we had (which was very nice) was the way to plant.

The terrible cold and freezes of 2008-2011 made it obvious that the climate had changed again. It was more like the seventies than the nineties. Because the winter is the defining time for plants, colder winters are far worse than warmer summers.

So when somebody, with no evidence, tries to tell us something that is patent nonsense, I will laugh in your face. Especially when you try to insult and deride, rather than provide any evidence.

 

[freesk]

Your "scientist" seems not to be a scientist. How come she or he has likings but no methodology? A real person who really fitted your description would have found in her/himself the reason of the insufficient evidence and wouldn't participate in the debate, or better said, she or he would follow the debate, ask questions now and then, avoiding to disrupt the debate.

Well, how comes you (aleCc, Megalodon Buckardo) don't cringe just a little when you claim that who does not interpret results as you do is not a scientist or a poor one. Natural Sciences, as opposed to religion, are full of debates on results (did you know this?). So, the fact the you are so sure everything points to the "truth" of your paradigm…well, we've been seeing it… . Just don't undermine other thoughts or people, or shut them up, it will enrich your thinking. And by the way, the example of evolution and creationism (Buckardoo) is sooo out of place that it left me with too little stamina to explain to you why.

 

[Buckaroo]

And by the way, the example of evolution and creationism (Buckardoo) is sooo out of place that it left me with too little stamina to explain to you why.

It's precisely apt. And I can pretty much guarantee based on your input thus far that you are in no position to "explain" anything to me, kid. Maybe you're new to this AGW stuff, but many of us aren't. We've already heard EVERYTHING you're likely to say.

 

[r-j]

We've already heard EVERYTHING you're likely to say.

Clearly that is not true. Notice how the regulars, who moaned at how quiet it was, how nobody could argue with them, they all refuse to respond to my points, which obviously is going to be difficult.

 

[Buckaroo]

Clearly that is not true. Notice how the regulars, who moaned at how quiet it was, how nobody could argue with them, they all refuse to respond to my points, which obviously is going to be difficult.

What points? Your "argument" has been largely incoherent, as near as I can tell from the last few pages.

 

[uke2se]

Clearly that is not true. Notice how the regulars, who moaned at how quiet it was, how nobody could argue with them, they all refuse to respond to my points, which obviously is going to be difficult.

Your posts all seem dreadfully unhinged and incoherent. I don't think there's an argument to be found in any of them.

 

[uke2se]

Well, how comes you (aleCc, Megalodon Buckardo) don't cringe just a little when you claim that who does not interpret results as you do is not a scientist or a poor one.

Way to miss the point.

Natural Sciences, as opposed to religion, are full of debates on results (did you know this?).

Yep, and right now, climate scientists are debating several things regarding AGW. None of those things are whether it's true or not.

So, the fact the you are so sure everything points to the "truth" of your paradigm…well, we've been seeing it… . Just don't undermine other thoughts or people, or shut them up, it will enrich your thinking.

Undermining cranks and faux experts is one of the things any public scientist has to deal with these days.

And by the way, the example of evolution and creationism (Buckardoo) is sooo out of place that it left me with too little stamina to explain to you why.

It's perfectly apt.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Well, how comes you (aleCc, Megalodon Buckardo) don't cringe just a little when you claim that who does not interpret results as you do is not a scientist or a poor one.

Where did you got such silly idea? I, personally, and I don't think it is much different with the rest of us, found your post to be a dramatization plenty of mistakes, not only an actor playing the scientist in your script.

Well, how comes you (aleCc, Megalodon Buckardo) don't cringe just a little when you claim that who does not interpret results as you do is not a scientist or a poor one.

... besides, I am not saying at all that the denialarabimus who says 2 plus 2 is 3 is an idiot because he doesn't share my "opinion" that it is 5 ... or pi, the right answer being 4.

Although there's hybris in people of every kind, there's no hybris in science. That's why the "not enough evidence" or "not convincing evidence" in the lazy pseudo-scientist of your tale, feels so rehearsed and unnatural. Your character seem to be humble yet he must be a fake as he is shown concluding there's no enough evidence about an anthropogenic global warming process after looking for a bit of information in a couple of books and the Discovery Channel. Not enough evidence for his own laziness to find evidence, and confessed -by your own scripting- lack of preparation to judge what is evidence and what is not in the area of global warming.

Well, how comes you (aleCc, Megalodon Buckardo) don't cringe just a little when you claim that who does not interpret results as you do is not a scientist or a poor one.

Look, I don't mean to interrupt the process of strawmanization that you're trying on me and my forum colleagues, but how on Earth that character in that tale of yours, who is supposed to be some kind of a scientist, but not from the proper disciplines to deal with climate and its change, is capable to determine how much evidence is "enough" evidence? Please, refer us to the scholar material about epistemology that explains how to do that logical leap.

You can see, you started a mala fides argumentation that I and others are telling that people are idiots and fakes because they don't think as we do, and yet I am not calling you an idiot nor a fake, but just saying that you are not acting bona fide in the debate, and offering your own posts as a proof.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Clearly that is not true. Notice how the regulars, who moaned at how quiet it was, how nobody could argue with them, they all refuse to respond to my points, which obviously is going to be difficult.

What points? You have taken shelter in a ring made of idle digressions and ravings. Your phrases are needed of connexion with reality before even becoming the seed of a point that somebody can -and care to- respond.

 

[a_unique_person]

And you don't see the hypocrisy of what you just did. It's not hurting the skeptics when you do that, it's hurting you. Just stop.

Now go plant a tree. Or if you are a city dweller and can't, and too lazy to lift a finger, pay somebody to plant one for you.

It will do far more good than feeling smug and saying stupid things.


Not that anyone thinks you, or any other boy crying wolf will do actually anything different.

I planted three trees yesterday, even when I had to have help doing it. Proof of this is easy to show.

No fossil fuels were used.

I have solar panels on my house now. I was surprised at how good a job they are doing, since they are only 2KW. My power bill has more than halved, pay back time will be less than three years. But thank you for asking.