Simpler Question About AGW

[Tokenconservative]

tell me where i can find these mythical beasts you say are everywhere, and maybe i will get out more. can you tell me where i can find unicorns? i bet you know that too.



if you hold the views you claim, *you* hold to a doctrine. rigidly.

and given that you rigidly ignore scientists in matters of science, exactly how did you come upon this enlightenment? "common sense"?



is this more of your "common sense"? impressive, as usual. apparently your definition of a "liberal" is someone who doesn't agree with "tokie".

Not sure where you are, but in the US you can find them on any college campus and by turning on the "new" or reading a "news" organ such as a "news"paper or "news" magazine.

The views I hold on climate change are pretty simpe: yes....climate changes. We know this. It always has and it always will; it did before humans existed, and has since we've come on the scene, and will do so after we are gone.

No, my definition of liberal is anyone who is a leftist.

Like you.

Incidentally, you cannot BE a liberal without a doctrinaire belief in AGW.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

Well, isn't this all pretty?

Right wing zealots trying to beat people up with straw men.

Really Sad.

Truth is that there is only one reality, no matter how much you try you cannot bend it as you will by pure belief.

Its a good thing that you folks are not going to be making these decisions much longer.

How comically hypocritical coming from a far left libbie...libs have been shrieking for years that it's all "relative."

Now, on this ONE issue...it's not?

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

Look, I agree with
This thing serves no purpose other than mudslinging and giving mhaze, Rodale and Tokie attention by giving them a stage for their cute little one-liners (read: let's stop feeding the trolls).

Translation: we (libbies) would prefer not paring this down to its bare facts, and would much prefer you (thinkers) continue arguing this issue OUR way, by ignoring the reality of our politics and talking about ice core samples.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

if we're all agreed that we're done here and the thread is useless, lets all just go!

last one out, turn off the light.

Translation:

If youse guys don't play by my rules I'm goin' home!

Tokie

 

[BenBurch]

...libs have been shrieking for years that it's all "relative." ...

Bzzzzt! Wrong, try again!

Moral relativism seems to be what GOP politicians do when they proposition guys in airport restrooms and then claim that they "are not gay." Or when they have sex with once-sexy washington lobbyists whose clients get helped with their problems with licensing just coincidentally....

Noting in the universe other than purely cultural things has ever been "relative".

Natural law absolutely is not.

And no Liberal ever argued that it is.

Tokie, you present the most pathetic straw men sometimes; I know you can do better than this if you give the matter some thought. There ARE things to debate here, but this is not one of them.

 

[CapelDodger]

Lets all sing, the wheels on the bus go round and round (thats where this argument is going).

Way to round off the first page, dude .

Tokie has already gone from the "AGW Stance" to "where did I say climate scientist, eh? Eh?", via (inevitably) the Algore. Just in page one.

The zeusbheld/mhaze sub-plot is shaping up interestingly. I'll read on ...

 

[CapelDodger]

[can you identify any SCIENTIST on EITHER side who says "climate does not change" OR "human activity (is) the only thing that can cause the climate to change?"

Can Tokie find anybody that claims this? I think not. Even the plebs have heard of the Ice Age (there've been a couple of animated films about them recently, they're very popular with the masses) but apparently Tokie hasn't. Perhaps he's on a superior intellectual plane, above populism and science the generally mundane.

Tokie seems to have a high opinion of Al Gore, but Al Gore is of the post-colonial aristocratic class, so that's explicable.

 

[CapelDodger]

And, I forgot the part where creationists claim that people "worship Charles Darwin", and denialists claim that people "worship Al Gore."

Excellent point. When the fight is taking place on Science's ground, the side that personalises the issue is revealed as the intruder.

It is exhausting, but ultimately satisfying.

There's a lot to be said for being on the winning side. Well worth the effort of getting involved at all .

The only satisfaction I'm sensing from Tokie is self-satisfaction; the main signal coming through is anger. Taking that as a proxy for frustration , I conclude that he should get out more. Not very scientific but hey, I'm not a scientist.

 

[volatile]

The thing that irks me the most is that they think they're pointing out something new. They think they've found the hole in the case. They think that no climate scientist ever noticed that it was warmer and colder at various points is our history, and they think that no-one bothered to check the expected temperature as per the cycles and the measured temperature today. In short, they're asking the right questions but then ignoring the answers.

It's willful ignorance.

 

[BenBurch]

volatile, just so.

The real question behind AGW is; Are we adding a forcing factor to the usual random walk of climate change that will be deleterious to our posterity?

The answer appears to be "Absolutely, yes."

-Ben

 

[CapelDodger]

Absolutely. The only constant is change. The QUESTION is; have we given the usual random walk the climate takes a push in one direction or another?

The question is that simple, isn't it? Is what we're doing (burning fossil-fuels) going to materially affect the climate? ("Materially" from a human perspective, obviously, not a palaeological one.) All the other stuff will carry on as normal; not even the Algore can influence the Sun or Earth's orbit and precession.

 

[BenBurch]

Well, you know, I have some ideas about how one might change the Earth's orbit involving an asteroid and a solar sail; But it takes hundreds of thousands of years.

 

[CapelDodger]

Partly true, IMHO. Also, it is partly true that the pro-global warming crowd has its own dogmatically religious fanatics.

None of them seem attracted to this Forum, though, do they? Whereas Tokie thrusts himself upon us.

Any such fanatic would be disowned (not to say mobbed) by the usual pro-science suspects, but Tokie isn't disowned by the other side. They're only gradually moving away down the bench as they realise he's not doing their cause any favours at all.

Lord Munchkin will get the same treatment in time, but not before the damage is done.

 

[Mobyseven]

...and there it is, part deux.

Tokie

 

[zeusbheld]

Translation: we (libbies) would prefer not paring this down to its bare facts, and would much prefer you (thinkers) continue arguing this issue OUR way, by ignoring the reality of our politics and talking about ice core samples.

Tokie

how precious. "Tokie," who can't even tell one poster from another, has just declared himself a thinker. guess i can go ahead and declare myself an NBA All-Star now.

incidentally, the reason people are leaving this thread "Tokie" is because you have nothing to offer--your OP:

I guess I'm being to "tedius" so I'll simplify this for those of you who can't read more than a few words at a time.

If only human activity can cause climate change (the AGW stance), the implication is that climate is otherwise static.

Yet AGWists claim that it is "deniers" who believe that climate is static.

Please explain.

Tokie

the claim you're calling the AGW stance is not a claim that anyone credible has made. ever.

don't take it personally, honey, i still think you're utterly irrelevant and don't mind telling you so; it's just that the thread is a big load of nothin' even by your "standards."

in other words, a waste of time even by internet standards. therein lies your achievement, i suppose.

see you on some other, more credible thread. buh-bye.

 

[rockoon]

Several times I have asked people here on this forum to give me evidence of AGW where I was then given a big list of links (several times) compiled by someone on these forums.

I went through the first 4 or so links, and then looked at half a dozen more near the middle of that list.

Every link I visited was detailing evidence of climate change, specifically Global Warming. None of them was detailing evidence of AGW.

Further, I have engaged many of the AGW proponents on this forum on the specific subject of AGW and quite a few of them have gotten themselves confused by the distinction between GW and AGW.

Reading between the lines... I believe that several of the more vocal AGW proponents here really do believe that climate change is equivilent to anthropogenic, because it is the simplest explanation for why they confuse GW with AGW so frequently.

 

[a_unique_person]

Several times I have asked people here on this forum to give me evidence of AGW where I was then given a big list of links (several times) compiled by someone on these forums.

I went through the first 4 or so links, and then looked at half a dozen more near the middle of that list.

Every link I visited was detailing evidence of climate change, specifically Global Warming. None of them was detailing evidence of AGW.

Further, I have engaged many of the AGW proponents on this forum on the specific subject of AGW and quite a few of them have gotten themselves confused by the distinction between GW and AGW.

Reading between the lines... I believe that several of the more vocal AGW proponents here really do believe that climate change is equivilent to anthropogenic, because it is the simplest explanation for why they confuse GW with AGW so frequently.

Understanding and attributing climate change. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf It's quite complex, but this explains where the "A" comes into it all.

 

[BobK]

Understanding and attributing climate change. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf It's quite complex, but this explains where the "A" comes into it all.

You've posted up the link to chapter 9 so often that by now you must really be an expert on what is contained in the chapter.

I noticed no white in the legend colors for the figure 9 graphs. So maybe you would explain to the readers here why they used white-out from 50s to 90s and 50n to 70n in the lower portion of figure 9.1 graphs, and why the figure 9.2 graphs are cropped back to 75n through 75s.

Could it be there was money in the budget for white-out but not to fix the models?

 

[Pipirr]

You've posted up the link to chapter 9 so often that by now you must really be an expert on what is contained in the chapter.

I noticed no white in the legend colors for the figure 9 graphs. So maybe you would explain to the readers here why they used white-out from 50s to 90s and 50n to 70n in the lower portion of figure 9.1 graphs, and why the figure 9.2 graphs are cropped back to 75n through 75s.

Could it be there was money in the budget for white-out but not to fix the models?

Apart from your one graphic design concern, do you have any comment on the 84 page chapter as a whole, with its 11 pages of references?

Personally, I find the chapter an excellent primer for understanding where the 'A' in in 'AGW' comes in.

 

[Crossbow]

I guess I'm being to "tedius" so I'll simplify this for those of you who can't read more than a few words at a time.

If only human activity can cause climate change (the AGW stance), the implication is that climate is otherwise static.

Yet AGWists claim that it is "deniers" who believe that climate is static.

Please explain.

Tokie

'Tokenconservative' has now been banned!



Great! Now I will no longer have to deal with his legions of strawmen.

It sure is a good Wednesday.