Unless and until you provide some convincing evidence, I'm left with the opinion that you have picked some sour cherries.
(I'm batting 0 for 2 on this simple question, the last time with casebro.)
Global warming
- Thread starter oglommi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- global warming
(I'm batting 0 for 2 on this simple question, the last time with casebro.)
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
I referred specifically to oglommi's descrption of the IPCC reports as hysterical. Which is ridiculous, and thus likely to be ridiculed. In your mind this transmogrifies into ridiculing any questioning of AGW. Rather typical of the contrarian whining that's charcterised this thread. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing contarians complain about how they can't be heard. There are thousands of websites and blogs out there saying the same thing. It's a constant drone.
Would "actual climate-science blog" mean a contrarian one? Been there, tried that, got called a Marxist tree-hugging faggot, cut my losses and left.
That "AGW dogma" is, I assume, your term for AGW science, and climate science in general. Science is the opposite of dogma. Orwellian strategy only works when backed by Orwellian influence. Which you don't got, bro'.
My conclusion that the world will continue to warm for the next century can (and will) be validated because it is based on physics and sound reasoning. The world will continue to warm.
The assumption that it will get cooler is based on wishful-thinking, and will be invalidated. Not that there won't continue to be predictions of cooling just up-the-line. The Rapture's as likely to occur first. In my opinion.
Could you elaborate on that?
It's been a warming period; the trend is still upwards within the predicted range. The solar and cosmic ray alternative theories have been consigned to the round file by another 9 years of observations. Lindzen's Iris hasn't opened (not that it was ever widely expected to) and cloud-cover has changed in the predicted manner (which is to say, not much).
Outside the scientific orbit, the least persuadable of political cliques (excepting the Poles, who do exception deliberately, if you ask me) have come around and public acceptance of AGW has risen steadily. This can't be attributed to superior marketing vis a vis the contrarian camp. It has to be attributed to what's actually happened.
Thirty years ago AGW was a tentative prediction, twenty years ago it was a worrying prediction, ten years ago it was arguably evident, and now we're clearly experiencing it. It's happening, it's been happening, and it's going to continue happening. Get over it, move on to it not being a big thing. Or even being a good thing if that's your bent
You don't look it
. I reckon oglommi does, though. I don't think it's just a language thing - oglommi's English is commendable.No offence meant, oglommi, the young get patronised by the old in every language. It's all we've got left
.Take it for what? A walk?
A claim was made that the IPCC temperature predictions have been lowered since 1990.
Your response, worded as a refutation, was on the order of "but the predicted low got higher." In other words, you did not use any methodology that would actualy refute the claim, but instead just used words that sound like they refute the claim.
I suggested a methodology that, if implimented, might refute the claim.
Instead of implimenting the methodology (or any other methodology) that might accomplish your goal of refuting the claim, instead you implimented more word tactics.
(If you DID impliment it, you wouldnt like the results, so don't bother)
David Rodale said:
Since David Rodale won't answer then I will: There is no basis. The inferred claim is so absurd that it defies credulity.varwoche said:
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
I'll try a different formulation. The predictions are that future temperatures will lie within a certain range. That range has narrowed over time, and the upper limit has reduced, but that does not mean that the predictions have lowered. That would only apply if the upper limit was the prediction, which it wasn't.
There's no methodology that can extract a prediction from the range, since the range is the prediction. David Rodale's claim that the prediction has lowered does rather assume that a specific prediction can be extracted from the ranges, so perhaps you should ask him what methodology he used.
From that I take it you've engaged in this exercise and found that the centre of the range has reduced. Which simply tells us that the uncertainty of the upper bound was (and probably still is) greater than the uncertainty of the lower bound. But less uncertain now than previously.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
I think I know this one
.1998 was the warmest year on record and the result's not yet in on 2007, which is nine bad years, neh? Even Egypt only got seven bad years, and look how they've ended up. Once all the rage, now completely discredited. We're on the ropes, dude. Just one more good punch (such as a credible alternative to AGW or the advent of a real cooling-trend) and we're out.
Safe-Keeper
My avatar is not a Drumpf hat
On the 'How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic' page, the one I thought about was here:
It's apparently the same arguments, though.
It's also disconcerting that everyone who questions the debate or anything in it have to start with an 'I know global warming is real and...' disclaimer to avoid getting flamed to death. All in all, it worries me. It's worried me for quite a while, actually.
I feel a bit like a fundie de-converting when I admit that I've been guilty of this kind of 'fundamentalism' myself.
Code:
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics#Stages%20of%20DenialBecause the fear tactics are working and people are scared. It's like when the US wanted to go into Iraq and everyone who disagreed were hounded mercilessly. I remember trying to participate in forum debates in 2003 and watching every single one slide into mudslinging after only a few posts. The GOP did everything in their power after 9/11 to scare everyone to pieces about terrorism, and it worked. Same with global warming. Same with every issue subjected to the horrors of a fear regime.
It's also disconcerting that everyone who questions the debate or anything in it have to start with an 'I know global warming is real and...' disclaimer to avoid getting flamed to death. All in all, it worries me. It's worried me for quite a while, actually.
I feel a bit like a fundie de-converting when I admit that I've been guilty of this kind of 'fundamentalism' myself.
I know about 1998 and el nino. One has to marvel at cherry picking taken to such levels of buffoonery.
(And btw, apparently 2005 surpassed 1998.)
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
(A word to the wise : this could be interpreted to mean that the GOP is drumming-up fear of climate change, and there are unkind people out there who are quite capable of doing that to score points off you.)
What "fear regime" are you referring to here?
If you think there's flaming going on here, you should check out the Politics Forum. Dive straight in - start with anything concerning the Levant.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
It seems to take the likes of me to say it en claire, though. Otherwise it's left at "a bad nine years for AGW" or some such. That way the dread words "El Nino" need not be used or seen. (I, too, recall the casebro example of the same thing.)
That's according to one measure, so you're leaving yourself open to accusations of cherry-picking. An opening some people are unkind enough to exploit. Best not mention in at all, IMO. The less one elaborates, the less contrarians have to play mis-direct with.
"The facts, ma'am. Just the facts." And your esteemed Lists, of course
.CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Further to this, I came to this thread when it was already well-developed (if that's the appropriate term) and was struck by it's early plot-arc.
Post 1 : OP question.
Post 2 : Schneibster answers OP question.
Posts 3-8 : various links and references relevant to the OP question (one from your good self)
Post 9 : Diamond accuses scientists of deliberate fraud on a wide scale. Really wide.
Post 10 : mhaze agrees with him.
Post 11 : mhaze expresses preference for contrarian posters
Post 12 : JoeEllison posts something uncharitable (as is his wont) but not targeted at any previous poster or post.
Post 13 : mhaze is back to the widespread scientific fraud.
Post 14 Big Al's in there claiming that people are being "flamed to cinders".
Overwrought? Or hysterical? We report, you decide.
On page 1 mhaze introduces the term "alarmism" and on page 2 (I think) brings in Al Gore. Who saw that coming? Well, quite a few of the older-timers here ...
Diamond turns up with accusations of scientific fraud only remotely related to the OP, later brings up the CO2 lag at the end of inter-glacials (the
irrelevance of which, and explanation for, he's been repeatedly provided with), and "historical revisionism". Once again, right on cue.
You'll appreciate why exasperation has to be actively suppressed, which can lead to tetchyness. So can certain behaviour, for instance
Diamond to Megalodon :"Clean up on aisle 6. Enormous can of stupid logical fallacies burst wide open"
Megalodon : "BTW, care to show those logical fallacies?"
Diamond : "Why certainly. Let's go through them at a pace you can understand. I'll type extra slowly for clarity."
Megalodon : "Having read your post, I can say it didn't help... try thinking next time."
Diamond :" And back to the insults. Can't deal with the science, so just insult instead."
How can anyone not want to slap someone like Diamond? I think the restraint generally shown is remarkable. I did let go a bit on another post just recently, but he asked to be spared my "passive-aggression" (politeness to you and me) so I spared him the passive. Always ready to oblige, me. Even for someone who's called me a racist more than once. There's a debating tactic (it quite possibly has a name) which involves provoking your antagonist then, once the desired response has been elicited, start shouting "Ooh, look, I'm being suppressed! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!". It's seldom used by the side with the stronger arguments.
At this point I'll bring up the claim by the AGW-is-real camp that the Bush White House has use political placemen in federal institutions in an attempt to keep scientists "on-message" vis-a-vis Climate Change. (For instance, referring to "climate change" rather than "global warming" if they really really think they should bring the subject up at all.) I can see how that might be presented as equivalent to the "I'm being suppressed!" argument, but it isn't, for the simple reason that there's no claim that it worked worth a damn. It simply had no chance in the good ol' US of A. Gotta love the place in principle, and quite a lot in practice.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
Capel Dodger-- I find you an eloquent font of clarity and humor amidst the obfuscating spin.
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,270
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
I am gratified by your good opinion of what I aim at, since I have a very good opinion of you. Which is the kind of opinion I care about.
David Rodale
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 680
Some folks have busy lives.....job, family etc. I assure you I will reply to as much as possible in due time.
At such time I too will have some questions of my own. The difference will be you won't be able to answer them with any acceptable degree of scientific evidence or certainty within the bounds of statistical methodology.
Last edited:
Safe-Keeper
My avatar is not a Drumpf hat
Easy there, Dodger, I wasn't saying there was significant flaming here in this thread, nor at JREF forums (I'm unfamiliar with this place), it was more of a general observation.
I'm talking about how certain media outlets making this sound as frightening as possible, and of An Inconvenient Truth using fear as a tool (which I felt it did).
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
From my observation and association with various scientists, it would serve humanity well to be more fearful. A suspicious lump is worth looking into and treating, don't you think? This lump is growing. How else would you expect those who understand this to act? If you saw someone with a suspicious growth and you knew that time was of essence, would you be any different? What would it take for you to understand that the fear generated by that film was underplayed? I think much of the media is pretending there are controversies where there are none-- that's the tool I see media using-- because money speaks.
Can you refute the claim?
(I'll warn you again that you wont like the results if you investigate the matter)
There is a methodology that extracts an average from a range.
This methodology is legacy earth science stuff that produces a meaningful value. Your partner in alarm, AUP, does not deny this. Infact he states this very thing in this very thread. The measurement of average global temperatures is founded on this very technique.
Perhaps you are claiming that its only a meaningful value if you agree with the result?
The climate sciences assume that an average can be extracted from ranges.
Are you stating that there are no other explanations that can be drawn from the field of statistics, that you have identified the only explanation?
Remember. I have looked at the data and you have not. Tread carefully. Yes, I am baiting you. I will again warn you to tread carefully but please do answer my questions honestly. I will accept an answer of "well I really havent thought about it at all and have just been making things up" as a valid termination of this offshoot.
Safe-Keeper
My avatar is not a Drumpf hat
Actually, I feel it was overplayed. I respect and fear global warming, trust me, I do. However, the movie, while balanced, overdid it in some cases. For example, it stated that the Greenland ice was melting rapidly and that if it all melted away, sea levels would rise 20 (?) feet. However, I read elsewhere that the soonest this can happen is in 1000 years, and it seems Al Gore 'forgot' to mention this in his documentary.
The Norwegian media, at least the papers I read (Bergens Tidende and Aftenposten, should anyone be interested), seem to be opposite. Norway's #1 in the world when it comes to climate fears, so fear is what sells here.
I made a thread on it here, and I think it clarifies matters.