Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[turbobloke]

jshell said:

Christ almighty! Let's not start the carousel once again! We know AGW is horse-st, they know AGW is horse-st, let's wait for more new info.

Meanwhile, greetings from Phil in Punxsutawney

[turbobloke]

Ahimoth said:

There are thousands of you out there.

Incorrect, hundreds of thousands at the very least, probably millions and using the IPCC's stats methodology, more than the population of the planet, purely from belief.

Not that any false or real consensus matters.

Ahimoth said:

Not contributing anything.

Irony running deep at this point, and (if you look through the climate threads) others disagree with you, which you must be accustomed to.

[Blib]

Ahimoth said:

There are thousands of you out there.

Not contributing anything.

I could be on the wrong end of a Turing test here, it's simply programmed schtick that could be culled from millions of pointless posts on internet forums and bunged together in a chatbot.

If you believe, why do you believe? What evidence convinced you? This is a forum. It is a place where folk exchange opinions.

What's yours?

Contribute something.

[jshell]

FFS, don't feed.

[turbobloke]

Blib said:

Ahimoth said:

There are thousands of you out there.

Not contributing anything.

I could be on the wrong end of a Turing test here, it's simply programmed schtick that could be culled from millions of pointless posts on internet forums and bunged together in a chatbot.

If you believe, why do you believe? What evidence convinced you? This is a forum. It is a place where folk exchange opinions.

What's yours?

Contribute something.

Yup, better than "not contributing anything" - who said that?!

Even though Paris is getting closer and we can expect more outbreaks of dull drizzle, back on topic the time is right such that climate-obsessed Obama is now the longest serving Potus not to see a Cat 3+ hurricane hit the USA. Thank goodness there's so little extreme weather not caused by non-existent dangerous manmadeup warming.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollin...

[mondeoman]

Ahimoth said:

What questions? Some snark about models?

There's nothing unique about this thread btw that needs 12yrs of back reading to understand. It's played out all over the internet, it's just much more interesting to me when it's not quite so mutually gratifying as some prefer it to be.

There's truth in them thar hills, I tell 'ee.

[Blib]

He's probably scurried off to "Real Science" to do some cut n pasting.

Who was it on here who did that a few years ago and asked them on their forum for some back up?

[Ahimoth]

Again, as I've seen this played out so many times and with just so many archetypes, I'm not going to engage in the substance of AGW. There are others better at it than me, and you. Are you out there engaging them? Generally I find that discussing things with people who agree with you is mostly useless. If you're convinced that all these "empty vessels" "will fail", are you out there on their forums?

I'm amused that you pick up on what you see as irony in my post, when you unselfconsciously typed "you will fail".

[Blib]

Ahimoth said:

Again, as I've seen this played out so many times and with just so many archetypes, I'm not going to engage in the substance of AGW. There are others better at it than me, and you. Are you out there engaging them? Generally I find that discussing things with people who agree with you is mostly useless. If you're convinced that all these "empty vessels" "will fail", are you out there on their forums?

I'm amused that you pick up on what you see as irony in my post, when you unselfconsciously typed "you will fail".

So, you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to contribute to this debate.

Well done you!

[Ahimoth]

It's not a debate.

I think pointing out to people that they're mutually gratifying each other rather than discussing something is a contribution. A slightly voyeuristic one, but there we go.

[Blib]

Ahimoth said:

It's not a debate.

I think pointing out to people that they're mutually gratifying each other rather than discussing something is a contribution. A slightly voyeuristic one, but there we go.

No it's not. That's trolling.

Then once more, I ask you to contribute. It is plain as a hockey stick curve that you disagree with most of the posters on here. I am genuinely interested in why that is.

CONTRIBUTE !!!!!!

[Jinx]

Ahimoth said:

There are thousands of you out there.

Not contributing anything.

I could be on the wrong end of a Turing test here, it's simply programmed schtick that could be culled from millions of pointless posts on internet forums and bunged together in a chatbot.

Edited by Ahimoth on Friday 28th August 08:36

Psychological projection - endemic in the John Cook's followers. Finding fault in Arrenhius' carbonic acid theories is of worth especially when the actual costs are so high.

[Ahimoth]

Blib said:

No it's not. That's trolling.

Then once more, I ask you to contribute. It is plain as a hockey stick curve that you disagree with most of the posters on here. I am genuinely interested in why that is.

CONTRIBUTE !!!!!!

It appears to be a surprisingly successful unintentional troll. Suggesting that this is rather an odd thread given "you will fail" and much of the rest of the content, should be rather uncontroversial.

It's all out there. There's more than you could read in a lifetime. I suggest you start with something like Spencer Weart's book, it's available for free on the internet. Only one person I know with "sceptical" leanings has ever taken me up on that btw.

It's pointless discussing this with people who agree, and it's pointless discussing this when people un-ironically declare "you will fail" before you've even started. I've been out there and discussed AGW reasonably and at length with people who don't agree with me (on very much at all, let alone this), thought I'd made some headway, left and returned a year later to find that in my absence they'd starting blaming CO2 rises on volcanoes again.

[Blib]

Ahimoth said:

Blib said:

No it's not. That's trolling.

Then once more, I ask you to contribute. It is plain as a hockey stick curve that you disagree with most of the posters on here. I am genuinely interested in why that is.

CONTRIBUTE !!!!!!

It appears to be a surprisingly successful unintentional troll. Suggesting that this is rather an odd thread given "you will fail" and much of the rest of the content, should be rather uncontroversial.

It's all out there. There's more than you could read in a lifetime. I suggest you start with something like Spencer Weart's book, it's available for free on the internet. Only one person I know with "sceptical" leanings has ever taken me up on that btw.

It's pointless discussing this with people who agree, and it's pointless discussing this when people un-ironically declare "you will fail" before you've even started. I've been out there and discussed AGW reasonably and at length with people who don't agree with me (on very much at all, let alone this), thought I'd made some headway, left and returned a year later to find that in my absence they'd starting blaming CO2 rises on volcanoes again.

OK. You've wasted my time. You have nothing to contribute here. I'm taking the dogs out for a long walk.

[Ahimoth]

The second paragraph you just quoted. It's probably not a waste of your time, unless you've already decided it is.

[jshell]

Oh, OK then, keep feeding...

[Jinx]

Ahimoth said:

I suggest you start with something like Spencer Weart's book, it's available for free on the internet.

Arrenhius was wrong about carbonic acid and failed to understand the impact of H2O (all his experiments were in dry air). The warming in the 30's as alluded to in Spencer Wearts book cannot be attributed to CO2 (not even the IPCC claim this) and therefore G. S. Callendar was incorrect.
Weart's book is a re-write of history with an emphasises that computer models are somehow proof (failing to take into account any of Edward Norton Lorenz's work). The book is full of generalisations and assertation with little or no critical investigation - I've read Jehovah Witness pamphlets that show more complete arguments.
Now why don't you read Donna Laframboise's "The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert" and get back to us on why we may be a little less trusting of the AGW crowd's science.

[Ahimoth]

Jinx said:

Arrenhius was wrong about carbonic acid and failed to understand the impact of H2O (all his experiments were in dry air). The warming in the 30's as alluded to in Spencer Wearts book cannot be attributed to CO2 (not even the IPCC claim this) and therefore G. S. Callendar was incorrect.
Weart's book is a re-write of history with an emphasises that computer models are somehow proof (failing to take into account any of Edward Norton Lorenz's work). The book is full of generalisations and assertation with little or no critical investigation - I've read Jehovah Witness pamphlets that show more complete arguments.
Now why don't you read Donna Laframboise's "The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert" and get back to us on why we may be a little less trusting of the AGW crowd's science.

I would say that's astonishing, but as I say, I've seen it all before.

I'd suggest that there's a Nobel Prize awaiting you, but I suspect you have at least some self-awareness.

[Diderot]

Ahimoth said:

Jinx said:

Arrenhius was wrong about carbonic acid and failed to understand the impact of H2O (all his experiments were in dry air). The warming in the 30's as alluded to in Spencer Wearts book cannot be attributed to CO2 (not even the IPCC claim this) and therefore G. S. Callendar was incorrect.
Weart's book is a re-write of history with an emphasises that computer models are somehow proof (failing to take into account any of Edward Norton Lorenz's work). The book is full of generalisations and assertation with little or no critical investigation - I've read Jehovah Witness pamphlets that show more complete arguments.
Now why don't you read Donna Laframboise's "The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert" and get back to us on why we may be a little less trusting of the AGW crowd's science.

I would say that's astonishing, but as I say, I've seen it all before.

I'd suggest that there's a Nobel Prize awaiting you, but I suspect you have at least some self-awareness.

Ad homs now, wow this is a fresh MO; we've never witnessed that strategy before.

So, go on then, tell us how much global warming we've had in the last 20 years? Compare those figures with IPCC projections and tell us what the deltas are. Then tell us how much increase in lemonade bubble emissions there's been in those 20 years. Finally, attempt to make a logical, scientific and epistemologically sound conclusion based on the data you have gathered.


Edited to correct pesky autocorrect.

Edited by Diderot on Friday 28th August 11:28

[Ahimoth]

Why have I got to be the one who brings something new? No-one else is.

Let's cut all this down to brass tacks - let's assume Arrhenius was wrong, and you guys are right. Why is the scientific, and political, paradigm so different?