Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

The difference is that Dr. Christy is a trained climate scientist and John Cook is a cartoonist turned propagandist. Jack's reference to Christy also being a minister is just the typical warmist ad hominem from an intellectually dishonest person.

Delphin slithers to to bottom of Graham's hierarchy and wallows around.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Please provide your analysis of Curry's post in which you believe she supports your position.

Read it, and provide your analysis of why it does not. That is, once you define what you imagine 'my position' is.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

Please guys do yourself a favor and leave science out of your debate.

Everything you just wrote is sensible and useful insight.

I would say that nothing about these AGW "debates" on CF is sensible. Certain topics - eg guns or AGW - are proxies for political arguments, and political arguments are the Asian carp of forums; those buggers try to get in everywhere and they generally make things miserable. Best idea is to keep them out when you can, but the moderators seem to be weary of that and are hoping that either this one will burn itself out, or at least contain the infection.

I have noticed, maybe you have too, that when a actual practising scientist drops by for a comment or two, the hostilities get dialled way down, there's some throat clearing and clarifications, assertions get walked back, and sometimes some genuinely scientific questions get asked and answered... and we actually learn something for a change.

So...respectfully... maybe we need MORE science here, from the people IN science? Know any climate science grad students who need a summer job? Maybe CF could hire'em to moderate this.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Delphin slithers to to bottom of Graham's hierarchy and wallows around.

Actually, the bottom of Grahams hierarchy is not the correct description of a person's argument. Intellectually dishonest people employ ad hominem attacks on a regular basis, so I think it more likely I am at top of the hierarchy, where I have explicitly refuted the main point. In this case, the irrelevance of John Christy's faith to his scientific credentials. See the difference?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Read it, and provide your analysis of why it does not. That is, once you define what you imagine 'my position' is.

Your assertion requires your evidence.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

I have explicitly refuted the main point. In this case, the irrelevance of John Christy's faith to his scientific credentials. See the difference?

The difference is that you're refuting a point that no-one made. That's ok, but when you're refuting the things you make up, you should really do it in private.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Actually, the bottom of Grahams hierarchy is not the correct description of a person's argument. Intellectually dishonest people employ ad hominem attacks on a regular basis, so I think it more likely I am at top of the hierarchy, where I have explicitly refuted the main point.

Nope. And you continue to wallow.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Your assertion requires your evidence.

As does yours. You have asserted that the current pattern of ice coverage in the Arctic is unprecedented. it is not. Demonstrate it is or stop pretending you understand this topic.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Actually, the bottom of Grahams hierarchy is not the correct description of a person's argument. Intellectually dishonest people employ ad hominem attacks on a regular basis, so I think it more likely I am at top of the hierarchy, where I have explicitly refuted the main point. In this case, the irrelevance of John Christy's faith to his scientific credentials. See the difference?

The irony of a MMGW Cultist questioning someone else's faith, is too rich to ignore.
For it is on Faith they believe the MMGW lie, as they turn from Science and reason to the days of Witch trials and indulgences from CO2 sins.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

As does yours. You have asserted that the current pattern of ice coverage in the Arctic is unprecedented. it is not. Demonstrate it is or stop pretending you understand this topic.

Where did I make that assertion?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

The irony of a MMGW Cultist questioning someone else's faith, is too rich to ignore.
For it is on Faith they believe the MMGW lie, as they turn from Science and reason to the days of Witch trials and indulgences from CO2 sins.

So that would be imagined irony, for an imagined point, right?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It took Amundsen three years to go through the NWP, 1903-1906.

The St Roche also went through the NWP - twice in the 1940's.

And the punch line is . . . what? You have a habit of keeping us in suspense.

Originally Posted by jackdale

So you want the curriculum to include a point of view that that is not accepted by one single science academy on the planet? Let's include creation is a biology class as well while we are at it.

UAH?? What exactly is required for an "academy" or "institution" to "accept" a particular position on the science of AGW? 97% of the scientists who work or teach there? A "significant" majority? A "clear & convincing" one? How about a mere preponderance, a term you have used. Do "academies" or "institutions," at least private ones, even take a position, or is it really the position of the profs & scientists who work there? So if an institution does not take a position, does that mean they don't "accept" any contrary AGW positions, and it's OK to teach children that the mainstream view is "settled science" and the "case is closed?" I bet inquiring parents would like to know.

Originally Posted by jackdale

Delphin slithers to to bottom of Graham's hierarchy and wallows around.

It's spelled D-E-L-F-I-N. You may not like it, but the name's definitely been making the rounds lately. Sucks being wrong on a simple spelling task, even for a science teacher. Probably just best to stick to copy & paste.

Originally Posted by jackdale

Your assertion requires your evidence.

Another catchy sounding one straight out of your (very old) archives.

Originally Posted by Delfin

As does yours. You have asserted that the current pattern of ice coverage in the Arctic is unprecedented. it is not. Demonstrate it is or stop pretending you understand this topic.

Originally Posted by jackdale

Where did I make that assertion?

And here we go, yet again. Seems obvious that if Arctic sea ice has retreated before, and specifically prior to the claimed big uptick in warming since the 1950's, it's harder to attribute the current ice retreat primarily to MMGW rather than natural causes as Judith Curry seems to believe. No science required here, just some basic logic. Or are Curry's future predictions not worth exploring because you personally don't agree with them? Wouldn't it be more "educational" for you to analyze why you don't agree, or is that giving away the punch line too soon?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Hey genius, Kenomac opened the door to that topic.

Hey,

I posted a simple cartoon of the Al Gore dressed as the Messiah.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by undercutter

Absolutely, I believe that they start the indoctrination in Grade 1, at least based on the comments of all my Grandchildren. How would global warming come to the attention of 6 year olds? I posted this once before, in that it doesn't matter what the opinion of the older generations are as all the children are being trained up by the system controlled by the left including GW, Transgender rights and wealth redistribution.

My personal opinion doesn't matter and won't make a difference and I hope this post doesn't indicate my position in any direction. We did install 10Kva of solar at home but only because I got tired of paying the exorbitant bills as a result of Ontario's policies. With interest rates at near zero there was a better return than leaving the money in the bank.

Thanks brother, just as I suspected.... But now, the two of us will be attacked for installing solar for all the wrong reasons.

Saving money doesn't fit the GW agenda.

I'm presently in the final design stages for installing 400W of solar on our rotten capitalist bastard owned boat... for all the wrong reasons.

Please keep in touch.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Had to google it.

This thread is a sociology experiment by the moderators of CF; previously they would have shut this non-sailing mess down relatively quickly. I guess allowing one such thread to fester flourish keeps the noise down in the rest of CF.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I would say that nothing about these AGW "debates" on CF is sensible. Certain topics - eg guns or AGW - are proxies for political arguments, and political arguments are the Asian carp of forums; those buggers try to get in everywhere and they generally make things miserable. Best idea is to keep them out when you can, but the moderators seem to be weary of that and are hoping that either this one will burn itself out, or at least contain the infection.

For such an active participant so full of relevant experience, insight & introspection, you certainly seem anxious for the mods to shut things down. Have we not shown enough empathy again? Maybe the uncertainties surrounding the decline in sea ice? The 93% number for dead & dying coral reefs thrown into doubt? The 6-year old kid who came home from school already talking the proper talk? Or how about getting called out for persistent attacks on the personal, political & religious beliefs of professional scientists whose only offense is challenging the mainstream science? Or is that not supposed to be part of their job? But it's all good because those attacks never really happened, were taken out of context, or maybe just made up by slithering conservatives wallowing around. Doesn't really matter, so long as we put out a new meme.

I can only imagine that these threads are no longer such safe places for you, so best to just shut them down. Yup, Third Day's points are getting more convincing by the day. Keep up the persuasive posts, L-E.