How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[mhaze]

I've seen calculations that before global fossil fuel use could cause significant warming, those fossil fuels would have ran out (something like in 2074).

 

[TrueSceptic]

On the subject of GWS behaviour, can someone explain the following exchange in another thread?

I asked this.

It was ignored so I asked again.

Still no response. I asked again here and got this bizarre response. I replied with this and got this in return.

I replied with this and got this back.

It was a simple and polite question. Why did mhaze not respond in like manner?

 

[Hindmost]

On the subject of GWS behaviour, can someone explain the following exchange in another thread?

I asked this.

It was ignored so I asked again.

Still no response. I asked again here and got this bizarre response. I replied with this and got this in return.

I replied with this and got this back.

It was a simple and polite question. Why did mhaze not respond in like manner?

This wiki article gives a reasonable overview of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect in global warming. It has a graph showing the wavelenghts that are absorbed by greenhouse gases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

There is no doubt that co2 and other greenhouse gases absorb and reradiate infrared waves. Quantifying the affect on the globe is certainly something that can be debated.

glenn

 

[mhaze]

On the subject of GWS behaviour, can someone explain the following exchange in another thread?

I asked this.

It was ignored so I asked again.

Still no response. I asked again here and got this bizarre response. I replied with this and got this in return.

I replied with this and got this back.

It was a simple and polite question. Why did mhaze not respond in like manner?

Well, let's see.

1. Person A indicates that there are a maximum of 34 "contrarian" articles skeptical of "consensus climate science".
2. Person B shows 407 published articles by just one "contrarian" and suggests persons A+B move on to another subject, that subject having been adequately handled.

Pretty simple stuff. Or so I thought. Like, checkmate, new game?, no hard feelings.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Well, let's see.

1. Person A indicates that there are a maximum of 34 "contrarian" articles skeptical of "consensus climate science".
2. Person B shows 407 published articles by just one "contrarian" and suggests persons A+B move on to another subject, that subject having been adequately handled.

Pretty simple stuff. Or so I thought. Like, checkmate, new game?, no hard feelings.

Mhaze, your reply has nothing whatsoever to do with the posts referenced.

There are 2 explanations: you were too lazy to check what they were, or you looked and went ahead with your misdirection anyway. Either way, you assumed that no one else would bother to check.

Shame on you!

 

[TrueSceptic]

This wiki article gives a reasonable overview of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect in global warming. It has a graph showing the wavelenghts that are absorbed by greenhouse gases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

There is no doubt that co2 and other greenhouse gases absorb and reradiate infrared waves. Quantifying the affect on the globe is certainly something that can be debated.

glenn

Thanks, Glenn, but this thread is about GW Sceptic behaviour, not the science itself.

 

[CapelDodger]

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

It's a common misapprehension. The real causes of the decline in vinyards after 1066 were economic and political, not climatic. After all, German and even Polish wine production continued to flourish and their climate was, if anything, worse than ours during the LIA.

GW Sceptics often misrepresent history. That really irritates me .

 

[CapelDodger]

I've seen calculations that before global fossil fuel use could cause significant warming, those fossil fuels would have ran out (something like in 2074).

If I saw calculations with such precision (about 2074?) I would be deeply sceptical. They involve enormous assumptions about how the global economy performs until then, apart from anything else. This strikes me as dubious way to promote renewables and/or nuclear.

Here you demonstrate another GW Sceptic trait : grasp at any straw, without examining it too closely.

 

[neltana]

Here you demonstrate another GW Sceptic trait : grasp at any straw, without examining it too closely.

So, you are refuting a piece of evidence that you haven't even seen and that was only vaguely described? Are you sure it is mhaze that is grasping at straws? Perhaps the graph mhaze described had error bars or a writeup where these issues are discussed.

Here you are exhibiting a trait of just about every forum poster on the internet: dismissing contrary information out of hand.

mhaze, I'm skeptical of conclusions reached by the projection you mention, but would love to see a link. Is one available?

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by TrueSceptic
On the subject of GWS behaviour, can someone explain the following exchange in another thread?
I asked this.
It was ignored so I asked again.
Still no response. I asked again here and got this bizarre response. I replied with this and got this in return.
I replied with this and got this back.
It was a simple and polite question. Why did mhaze not respond in like manner?
​

Originally Posted by mhaze
Well, let's see.
1. Person A indicates that there are a maximum of 34 "contrarian" articles skeptical of "consensus climate science".
2. Person B shows 407 published articles by just one "contrarian" and suggests persons A+B move on to another subject, that subject having been adequately handled.
Pretty simple stuff. Or so I thought. Like, checkmate, new game?, no hard feelings.
​

Mhaze, your reply has nothing whatsoever to do with the posts referenced.
There are 2 explanations: you were too lazy to check what they were, or you looked and went ahead with your misdirection anyway. Either way, you assumed that no one else would bother to check.
Shame on you!

Nonsense, but thanks for the elaborate writeup of your foolish assertion and it's collapse.

You are most welcome to try again, the subject was some creature called "contrarians" and the supposedly few articles in peer reviewed literature against some imagined "scientific consensus of AGW". Go at it from another angle, why not.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Nonsense, but thanks for the elaborate writeup of your foolish assertion and it's collapse.

You are most welcome to try again, the subject was some creature called "contrarians" and the supposedly few articles in peer reviewed literature against some imagined "scientific consensus of AGW". Go at it from another angle, why not.

You are blatantly trying to change the subject.

I asked an honest and reasonable question about your views on a particular topic. After ignoring this request for some time, you falsely accused me of lying.

A simple apology would have sufficed at any time. I expect one now.

 

[neltana]

Really? You actually expect one?

I fear you are going to be very disappointed.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Really? You actually expect one?

I fear you are going to be very disappointed.

I hope you are wrong. I expect people to act in a civil manner. If I make a mistake or falsely accuse someone, I apologise. Anyone not willing or able to do the same deserves no respect from anyone.

 

[neltana]

I was just being needlessly cynical. I'm sure the next 373 posts in this thread will be much more civil than the last 373.

Please forgive my momentary lapse.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
Nonsense, but thanks for the elaborate writeup of your foolish assertion and it's collapse.

You are most welcome to try again, the subject was some creature called "contrarians" and the supposedly few articles in peer reviewed literature against some imagined "scientific consensus of AGW". Go at it from another angle, why not.
​

You are blatantly trying to change the subject.

I asked an honest and reasonable question about your views on a particular topic. After ignoring this request for some time, you falsely accused me of lying.

A simple apology would have sufficed at any time. I expect one now.

I apologize for changing the subject from the 500 articles that refute your assertion that there are only 34 articles skeptical of "consensus climate science" to the new and bigger and scarier number of 500+407 or 907 articles skeptical of "consensus climate science". It did not occur to me that this would hurt your feelings.

Oh...by the way...

Want another thousand or so?

 

[TrueSceptic]

I apologize for changing the subject from the 500 articles that refute your assertion that there are only 34 articles skeptical of "consensus climate science" to the new and bigger and scarier number of 500+407 or 907 articles skeptical of "consensus climate science". It did not occur to me that this would hurt your feelings.

Oh...by the way...

Want another thousand or so?

No, I asked for an apology for you accusing me of lying here.
The change of subject here is secondary and I am not upset about it, only annoyed.

 

[CapelDodger]

So, you are refuting a piece of evidence that you haven't even seen and that was only vaguely described? Are you sure it is mhaze that is grasping at straws? Perhaps the graph mhaze described had error bars or a writeup where these issues are discussed.

Vague though it was, there's something to be gleaned from it. For instance, it's a "calculation" (not a graph), and "something like 2074" comes into it sufficiently for mhaze to have noticed and remembered.

Here you are exhibiting a trait of just about every forum poster on the internet: dismissing contrary information out of hand.

Not so. I gave one reason for being deeply sceptical of this "calculation" - the apparent precision of 2074 when we don't know precisely what fossil-fuels we have available anyway.

Had mhaze examined the "calculation", I'd have thought that would be the first thing he'd question, but his very vagueness strongly suggests that he didn't. Much more likely, I think, is that he saw something that said something he liked, so he remembered it and brought it (rather inappropriately) on this thread. Which is a discussion of behaviour and scepticism rather than AGW per se.

 

[mhaze]

No, I asked for an apology for you accusing me of lying here.
The change of subject here is secondary and I am not upset about it, only annoyed.

In that nest of links where lays a lie, or the accusation of one?

 

[mhaze]

Vague though it was, there's something to be gleaned from it. For instance, it's a "calculation" (not a graph), and "something like 2074" comes into it sufficiently for mhaze to have noticed and remembered.

Not so. I gave one reason for being deeply sceptical of this "calculation" - the apparent precision of 2074 when we don't know precisely what fossil-fuels we have available anyway.

Had mhaze examined the "calculation", I'd have thought that would be the first thing he'd question, but his very vagueness strongly suggests that he didn't. Much more likely, I think, is that he saw something that said something he liked, so he remembered it and brought it (rather inappropriately) on this thread. Which is a discussion of behaviour and scepticism rather than AGW per se.

Wow.

A bunch of talk about a number that I remember seeing. Wow again. HelllllOooOOOoOO??????????? You heard of Google? Check it out yourself. By not answering a reasonable question does all this come out. But is anyone actually going to look into finite fossil fuels? Apparently that's not part of the equation. Certainly it is part of the equation of not learning, in the presence of these rather amazing tools we have.

Wow.

 

[TrueSceptic]

In that nest of links where lays a lie, or the accusation of one?

The "nest" is hardly large or deep. I asked simple question. You eventually responded by calling me a liar. Perhaps you thought you were replying to another post, but either way, you have had several opportunities to either admit your mistake or apologise.

For the nth time, right here


But it's not just that. Your responses since then tell us all we need to know about the way you behave here.