Ice Age on the Way!

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Apparently, as climate models predicted, as greenhouse gasses accumulate and temperature rises in the troposphere (where weather & climate occur and we live), temperature falls* in the thermosphere. Apparently, the temp. has fallen more than expected.
It doesn't mean anything** appreciable to our climate.

* Interestingly, the thermosphere remains relatively "hot", although it wouldn't feel so, due to the scarcity of molecules (to transfer that heat) up there.
** It does/will affect the orbital decay of objects up there, due to a further "thinning" of that part of the atmosphere.

See also, StuM's #192.

except the troposphere is cooling . Just look at the satellite data from the UAH .

[Group9]

Originally Posted by Gene Neill

That mindset is precisely why I am so skeptical of your religion.

They literally think that stifling debate is the same as winning the argument.

It’s dogma, pure and simple and heretics (or even those with an open mind) are not appreciated or tolerated.

But, the oddest thing, is that they remain completely convinced that they can insult their way to a win. Even when you call them on it, it will be the very next thing they do, again.

[odonnellryan]

Originally Posted by newhaul

except the troposphere is cooling . Just look at the satellite data from the UAH .

Sure, but the overall trend is up. The very graphs you shared show that.

Originally Posted by Group9

They literally think that stifling debate is the same as winning the argument.

It’s dogma, pure and simple and heretics (or even those with an open mind) are not appreciated or tolerated.

But, the oddest thing, is that they remain completely convinced that they can insult their way to a win. Even when you call them on it, it will be the very next thing they do, again.

If you think what is going on here in this thread is debate, you're wrong.

It isn't debate when you ask people to clarify their positions and they just reply with a snarky remark.

That is largely all that I've ever seen from skeptics: arguments and rhetoric like "well you guys were saying we'd be dead 20 years ago, still here." "Look, it's cold this winter. Here's a snowball."

Those are emotional arguments that are dangerous and contribute nothing to the larger topic.

Yes, of course the science should be debated. And it absolutely is.

Does that mean letting these people, who are largely fanatical deniers for some reason, on the air to further their cause is a good thing to do?

I'd say absolutely not, and it should be obvious why.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Group9

They literally think that stifling debate is the same as winning the argument.

It’s dogma, pure and simple and heretics (or even those with an open mind) are not appreciated or tolerated.

But, the oddest thing, is that they remain completely convinced that they can insult their way to a win. Even when you call them on it, it will be the very next thing they do, again.

First of all, I did qualify that statement. I do have time for genuine scientific skeptics who actually know what they're talking about. I don't have much time for those who don't have the background, yet insist they have a better understanding than the subject matter experts.

Secondly, I've posted enough points to argue against. Where are your counter-arguments?

No solid arguments defending your position, just asserting that the pro-side is dogmatic.... that's dogmatic itself, isn't it?

[odonnellryan]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

First of all, I did qualify that statement. I do have time for genuine scientific skeptics who actually know what they're talking about. I don't have much time for those who don't have the background, yet insist they have a better understanding than the subject matter experts.

Secondly, I've posted enough points to argue against. Where are your counter-arguments?

No solid arguments defending your position, just asserting that the pro-side is dogmatic.... that's dogmatic itself, isn't it?

Problem on both sides of any mass-disagreement is that everyone feels calling people out on inconsistencies in their reasoning or their argument is a personal insult.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by odonnellryan

If you think what is going on here in this thread is debate, you're wrong.

I’m wrong? Really?

Does that mean letting these people, who are largely fanatical deniers for some reason, on the air to further their cause is a good thing to do?

.

Doesn’t look like it.

[odonnellryan]

Originally Posted by Group9

I’m wrong? Really?


Doesn’t look like it.

I wouldn't say you're personally wrong, but this isn't a debate IMO. Using rhetoric to win an argument may look like a debate but nothing substantial is being discussed.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by odonnellryan

Sure, but the overall trend is up. The very graphs you shared show that.

There seems to be some carelessness & thus confusion over the use of the word "trend." Climate science uses a 30-year avg., for better or worse. The referenced graph from UAH (satellite data) uses avg. temps from 1981-2010 as a baseline or "zero." (see below). You are correct that avg. measured temps from more or less 2001 are above this 30-year baseline, but not seemingly as consistent as they were below the baseline avg. from 1979 to about 1997-98. Avg. temps most recently peaked in 2016-17 at ~0.5C above this baseline during a significant El Nino event. Since then there has been cooling, with temps most recently recorded at 0.2 to 0.3C above baseline. Whether or not this most recent downward "trend" (from 2016-17) continues is anyone's guess it seems. Newhaul is most certain it will, and that is his opinion (and that of others no doubt). Still others disagree to be sure, and that is their opinion. No reason to get into a traffic jam or worse over it.

If you think what is going on here in this thread is debate, you're wrong.

Some worthwhile & informative debate but, as usual, the shallowest rhetoric is also the loudest, and only consists of pure partisanship. Preaching only to its own choir I'm afraid. Must feel good or something since it does nothing to inform nor persuade.

It isn't debate when you ask people to clarify their positions and they just reply with a snarky remark.

That is largely all that I've ever seen from skeptics: arguments and rhetoric like "well you guys were saying we'd be dead 20 years ago, still here." "Look, it's cold this winter. Here's a snowball."

Those are emotional arguments that are dangerous and contribute nothing to the larger topic.

No different from the other side. You just can't see it through your own bias. That's not a slight, just the reality, and you're certainly not alone. The only way I try & manage it for myself is going out of my way to expose myself to opinions I don't like. But that's not really human nature, and it can make for unpleasant listening & reading.

Yes, of course the science should be debated. And it absolutely is.

Unfortunately, well-meaning scientists are not completely immune from the hyper-politicization of the issue, and so the minority who don't go along are often shunned & vilified. There are even websites who "list" & label them as such. And what is most telling is that these are generally scientists who, like many laymen around here, agree that AGW exists and may be responsible for negative impacts. Their only departure from the mainstream is well-reasoned & honest opinion that natural forces play a greater role in warming. While it's true that there is tons of money flowing from both sides to get their respective messages out, there's no evidence I'm aware of that these skeptics in the science community have or are being influenced by it.

Does that mean letting these people, who are largely fanatical deniers for some reason, on the air to further their cause is a good thing to do?

Absolutely. In fact, if they are as "fanatical" as you believe, then it would be the best thing for your point of view since it would expose them as not being credible. Surely you've heard the quip about "transparency being society's best disinfectant."

I'd say absolutely not, and it should be obvious why.

That's really quite sad, and also far more dangerous to society as a whole than MMGW, in my opinion. It's not the liberalism or progressivism I personally grew up around, and really anathema to Western values & ideals. We're not talking about people, after all, who espouse religious or ethnic based hatred here, only those who don't share your degree of certainty about an unsettled area of science. The manner in which you, L-E, and far too many others opt to advance your opinions these days is one of the primary reasons I've chosen to #walkaway.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

First of all, I did qualify that statement. I do have time for genuine scientific skeptics who actually know what they're talking about. I don't have much time for those who don't have the background, yet insist they have a better understanding than the subject matter experts.

Secondly, I've posted enough points to argue against. Where are your counter-arguments?

No solid arguments defending your position, just asserting that the pro-side is dogmatic.... that's dogmatic itself, isn't it?

Your attempt to walk your rhetoric back is transparently bogus, if not laughable. I was mistaken that I could have rational discussions with you, and we could eventually agree to disagree. You're no different from a mirror image of a Sean Hannity. That's fine, it works for you, whatever. And the irony is I have no qualms with your stance on the ultimate AGW issue itself, only your intolerance for others. The disappointing part is that you can't seemingly distinguish between rational debate and partisan advocacy. You'll never be able to persuade nor influence with this approach and, as others have said, it only serves to turn people away. Unfortunately, you are emblematic of the approach of a lot of other people who share your views, and it's not healthy.

Sorry L-E. I think you're probably well-intended, but simply too angry & emotional for further engagement to be worthwhile.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Your attempt to walk your rhetoric back is transparently bogus, if not laughable.

In response to YOU on this very point I said:

The issue that I believe the BBC had to tackle is: do you have to invite a CC denier every time you do a AGW story? Most credible media organizations can and do seek out all the sides of an important issue. But if one side of the argument is consistently weak and intellectually dishonest, and has failed to land a body-blow to what they challenge... do you have to keep giving them a pedestel week after week?

I thought you were up for a more adult conversation this time around. Clearly I misjudged.

It's a public forum; do as you like.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

In response to YOU on this very point I said:

Quote:
The issue that I believe the BBC had to tackle is: do you have to invite a CC denier every time you do a AGW story? Most credible media organizations can and do seek out all the sides of an important issue. But if one side of the argument is consistently weak and intellectually dishonest, and has failed to land a body-blow to what they challenge... do you have to keep giving them a pedestel week after week?

I thought you were up for a more adult conversation this time around. Clearly I misjudged.

It's a public forum; do as you like.

You make dubious if not bogus assumptions & then attempt an argument based on them (see 1-3 below). You constantly use strawmen and/or distort other peoples' posts. It's a level of discourse about as illuminating as The View, and equally transparent. You have about as much knowledge about what AGW science really says as you did with your embarrassingly ignorant posts in the last science thread about overboard discharge, and you ignore any valid & reasonable skepticism in the science that departs from what you've been told to think. Do you really believe you are that much smarter than everyone else and others can't see through this?

1. Most credible media organizations can and do seek out all the sides of an important issue.

I'm not sure anyone really believes this anymore. They're all biased, particularly the mainstream ones. But I'm sure you believe that only Fox is biased & BBC & CNN are neutral. You're in so deep I don't think you understand what objectivity looks like.

2. But if one side of the argument is consistently weak and intellectually dishonest, and has failed to land a body-blow to what they challenge...

Depending on what position within the myriad of sub-issues that encompass the AGW issue, both sides deserve this criticism. Tagging one side is classic, simple-minded partisanship, and after sitting in on all these threads over the years I can only conclude you are engaging in it deliberately.

3. do you have to keep giving them a pedestel week after week?

This is what I mean. The BBC was used as but one example of the much larger issue of the modern liberal/progressive trend towards suppressing dissenting or even just non-conforming opinions. Nobody suggested a timetable or limited it to one news outlet. But the fact remains that the dominant theme out of mainstream media is one that not only supports the AGW meme, but assumes it. Rarely if ever is there coverage of even reasonable skepticism from the Curry/Spencer/Christie faction, and alarmism is what is generally peddled (it sells). This is why we always have new posters on these threads who sound incredulous that any contrary opinions even exist!

Even though I don't always share their level of certainty & conclusions over facets of the overall issue, I have learned a TON from the likes of posters such as Jackdale, GordMay, StuM and many, many others who have a more technical background or can just think logically & articulate their positions well. I'm sure many have their political biases like anyone else, but their credibility usually renders such bias irrelevant (well, not always with Jack ). You, on the other hand, and really you alone for the most part, are the single largest contributor to acrimony within the ranks. You are either not smart enough to get past being in ideological lockstep and thinking for yourself, or you are smart enough and you're just trying to suppress peoples' opinions by creating a hostile atmosphere. You're right that it's a public forum, but it's also a public adult forum as far as I know, so maybe you should consider a different forum where everyone thinks like you do, and return here when you've become an adult and can better handle it.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Lake-Effect,

So, If you were seated at the head of the 1616 inquisition board and a “fringe” character like Galileo were to come before you.... how would you and your “flat-earther” friends respond to him?

Modern Science awaits your overwhelming consensus type answer.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

No, you don't get to claim my hill; I'm the progressive, science-backing one here.

Most CC deniers are (choose one)
A) Younger and/or more-educated and/or liberal
B) Older and/or less-educated and/or conservative


Show all work.

You either can’t answer my simple question, or you’re proclaiming yourself to be smarter than me. Interesting.... please do your best to answer, the test is “open book” and you’ll receive a trophy for trying.

[odonnellryan]

Originally Posted by Exile

That's really quite sad, and also far more dangerous to society as a whole than MMGW, in my opinion. It's not the liberalism or progressivism I personally grew up around, and really anathema to Western values & ideals. We're not talking about people, after all, who espouse religious or ethnic based hatred here, only those who don't share your degree of certainty about an unsettled area of science. The manner in which you, L-E, and far too many others opt to advance your opinions these days is one of the primary reasons I've chosen to #walkaway.

I'm not saying people should be silenced or anything. I'm just saying if all you're bringing to the table is "Look, last two years were actually colder - see the planet isn't warming up!" then no, you don't deserve to be sitting across the table from someone who is trying to bring real information to the table. Largely this is the people who are on the side of the table who deny climate change.

I'm not certain about climate change. Not by a long shot. However, I take the "bet" that it is better for me and everyone involved to go as all-in as possible to work towards a remedy.

If I'm wrong (and I hope I am), well, we lost out on some profit but we have healthier air, water, and population.

If climate deniers are wrong? Well?

[Lake-Effect]

First, thank you for walking your accusation back, however imperfectly.

Originally Posted by Exile

1. Most credible media organizations can and do seek out all the sides of an important issue.

I'm not sure anyone really believes this anymore. They're all biased, particularly the mainstream ones. But I'm sure you believe that only Fox is biased & BBC & CNN are neutral. You're in so deep I don't think you understand what objectivity looks like.

I don't subscribe to the right-wing assertion that all media are heavily biased (so that's why it's ok that so many RW outlets have such an obvious skew). Amount of bias varies, intent and integrity of the different editorial boards vary. You won't persuade me, for example, that the BBC and Fox are equal but opposite. I don't watch CNN, so can't judge there.

And we all have identical access to better sources. No excuses.

2. But if one side of the argument is consistently weak and intellectually dishonest, and has failed to land a body-blow to what they challenge...

Depending on what position within the myriad of sub-issues that encompass the AGW issue, both sides deserve this criticism. Tagging one side is classic, simple-minded partisanship, and after sitting in on all these threads over the years I can only conclude you are engaging in it deliberately.

I do not accept that there are two equal but opposite positions on the climate science itself. There's a majority opinion, and some dissenters on some or all of the points accepted by the majority.

Of course, the best people to sort it all out are the climate scientists themselves. Not the popular press, and not some bored boaters on CF.

3. do you have to keep giving them a pedestel week after week?

This is what I mean. The BBC was used as but one example of the much larger issue of the modern liberal/progressive trend towards suppressing dissenting or even just non-conforming opinions. Nobody suggested a timetable or limited it to one news outlet. But the fact remains that the dominant theme out of mainstream media is one that not only supports the AGW meme, but assumes it. Rarely if ever is there coverage of even reasonable skepticism from the Curry/Spencer/Christie faction

This has been studied for over two decades; there is a dominant position supported by the majority of the field, and some credible dissent about parts of it.

But seriously - if there was really some serious fundamental flaws to the majority opinion, don't you think the dissenting work would have led to the uncovering of those flaws? Don't you think their discoverers would have issued press releases and found MANY outlets willing to air that discovery?

It simply hasn't happened. Further research mainly supports the currently-held majority opinions. Scientists can of course be wrong, but it's kind of ludicrous to think that it's the majority, and not the dissenting handful who have it wrong, for so long. Could happen... but not likely.

News media and governments can't wait forever for every last dissenter to change their mind. There's a time for studying, and a time for acting.

You, on the other hand, and really you alone for the most part, are the single largest contributor to acrimony within the ranks. You are either not smart enough to get past being in ideological lockstep and thinking for yourself, or you are smart enough and you're just trying to suppress peoples' opinions by creating a hostile atmosphere. You're right that it's a public forum, but it's also a public adult forum as far as I know, so maybe you should consider a different forum where everyone thinks like you do, and return here when you've become an adult and can better handle it.

I don't think CF should be a safe space for false and misleading statements on such an important topic.

Originally Posted by Exile

You have about as much knowledge about what AGW science really says as you did with your embarrassingly ignorant posts in the last science thread about overboard discharge, and you ignore any valid & reasonable skepticism in the science that departs from what you've been told to think.

About that thread, and the imposition that a DMZ imposes on cruisers with just Type-1 systems: you folks actually persuaded me that it was an undue hardship. I was offering concessions and accomodations. In the real world, if we were the commission deciding this... you would have won my vote and been pleased about it. But noooo, not in happy-fun CF debate world. I'm supposed to also smile and eat ALL the bulls#!t about how the entire concept of DMZs are just a ploy to gain votes and not at all ecologically justified.

Same thing here - I'm supposed to smile and nod politely at all the tired old denier tropes (and there was nothing new revealed here, really, pro or con)?

No. Sorry.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

You either can’t answer my simple question, or you’re proclaiming yourself to be smarter than me. Interesting.... please do your best to answer, the test is “open book” and you’ll receive a trophy for trying.

Tropheeee! I have one picked out already:





Anyone who can manage an annual half-year living on a 50+ ft in the Med is clearly smarter than me. No question.


So you already know why your question was so off-point.