# Who here is a global warming skeptic?

## Recommended Posts

It appears you have chosen the "shut up" option, good choice, but not what I was hoping for.

Edited by Harold Squared

• Replies 942
• Created

#### Posted Images

It appears you have chosen the "shut up" option, good choice, but not what I was hoping for.

Edited by StringJunky
##### Share on other sites

It appears you have chosen the "shut up" option, good choice, but not what I was hoping for.

##### Share on other sites

To date I have seen no conclusive proof that significant warming has been going on for the past 18 years. AGW advocates have floundered for years trying to explain why the increasing CO2 levels have not been matched by temperature observations and have finally doctored the evidence since denial and excuses have been unsatisfactory. It is fishy to say the least that a problem in data analysis should be "discovered" at this late date.

IF a significant warming trend exists there are a number of plausible causes unrelated to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

Finally, IF CO2 levels are(most improbably) responsible for increased global temperatures, there is no reason to think this trend must be catastrophic.

O Dim One, the responsibility for proof falls upon those who make the accusations. I see no reason to abandon my reasonable doubts so far.

##### Share on other sites

That's not a good analogy, though. You are basically arguing that since non-arson fires exist, no fires can be arson. Which is fallacious reasoning.

Not so. I am stating that fires have both intentional and accidental causes, and that mere assumptions are insufficient to tell one from another.

To use an analogy, let us say that the geological record indicates variations in climate of an "accidental" or solely natural causality. Then it is proposed that such processes have been supplanted by another, perhaps IRRESPONSIBLE PARTIES FOOLING WITH MOTHER NATURE. Far fetched, I know, but it is only an analogy.

This being an extraordinary claim, it would call for extraordinary evidence. Again, remember the burden of proof does fall upon the prosecutor.

##### Share on other sites

Not so. I am stating that fires have both intentional and accidental causes, and that mere assumptions are insufficient to tell one from another.

To use an analogy, let us say that the geological record indicates variations in climate of an "accidental" or solely natural causality. Then it is proposed that such processes have been supplanted by another, perhaps IRRESPONSIBLE PARTIES FOOLING WITH MOTHER NATURE. Far fetched, I know, but it is only an analogy.

This being an extraordinary claim, it would call for extraordinary evidence. Again, remember the burden of proof does fall upon the prosecutor.

##### Share on other sites

And right willingly I shall. A summary provided by thegwpf.com regarding the recent efforts of Karl et al. describes the paper as substandard and as "a highly speculative and slight paper that produces a statistically marginal result by cherry picking time intervals, resulting in a global temperature graph that is at odds with all other surface temperature datasets, as well as those compiled via satellite."

Further supporting commentary is of course available at the website, and others.

For my part, I have suspicions regarding the timing of such a discovery. So many allegedly competent researchers, slaving away through years of tireless and dedicated swilling at the public trough, I mean, research, and it took them so long to come up with so little?

If competent, the miserable results must be by design.

##### Share on other sites

Not so. I am stating that fires have both intentional and accidental causes, and that mere assumptions are insufficient to tell one from another.

To use an analogy, let us say that the geological record indicates variations in climate of an "accidental" or solely natural causality. Then it is proposed that such processes have been supplanted by another, perhaps IRRESPONSIBLE PARTIES FOOLING WITH MOTHER NATURE. Far fetched, I know, but it is only an analogy.

This being an extraordinary claim, it would call for extraordinary evidence. Again, remember the burden of proof does fall upon the prosecutor.

But if you are stating that there have been intentional fires, can you provide the evidence that they were intentional?

##### Share on other sites

But if you are stating that there have been intentional fires, can you provide the evidence that they were intentional?

I can follow an argument and do my homework. I have been doing plenty of both today. It is fun and easy.

You should try it.

##### Share on other sites

I can follow an argument and do my homework. I have been doing plenty of both today. It is fun and easy.

You should try it.

Seems like you are dodging the question. Provide evidence or admit you are incorrect.

##### Share on other sites

Oh Jesus. Look up "analogy" for me, okay?

I will start a thread devoted to arson investigation in what I hope is an appropriate venue on this site.

##### Share on other sites

Oh Jesus. Look up "analogy" for me, okay?

I will start a thread devoted to arson investigation in what I hope is an appropriate venue on this site.

EDIT: This is going to be the last time or I think you will be found guilty of breaking the forum rules that require evidence for a claim in this section or other sections of this forum for that matter.

Edited by Unity+
##### Share on other sites

Luckily, there is an extraordinary amount of extraordinary evidence that the extraordinary rises in CO2 are largely man-made.

I know. Extraordinary, isn't it.

##### Share on other sites

Oh Jesus. Look up "analogy" for me, okay?

I will start a thread devoted to arson investigation in what I hope is an appropriate venue on this site.

I really dislike your discussion style. You provide nothing with any meat on it, just tap-dancing and handwaving, pretending your opinions are facts, and making all kinds of assertions with virtually nothing to back yourself up but arguments from incredulity. You mock others when you fail, and you try to shift the burden of proof away from your shaky claims.

You have "suspicions" but you don't dig to find out anything concrete. You cite an obviously biased "Global Warming Policy Foundation" that refuses to list who its contributors are. They use dodgy graphs and shady practices in their efforts to argue against AGW. In short, you discuss AGW like an oil exec who is paid to mislead.

##### Share on other sites

I assure you I am not paid to do any of this and I do my very best to be truthful. This includes the arson investigation thread in "Science Education" by the way. Hopefully it will be enlightening for our dear brother Unity.

If you have a problem with a specific post or reference details would be welcome.

I am an educated layman, freelance critical thinker and advocate for the truth. I am also not the topic of this thread.

The recent revisions addressing the so-called "hiatus" in temperature levels do not involve satellite derived data, if I am not mistaken.

I really dislike your discussion style. You provide nothing with any meat on it, just tap-dancing and handwaving, pretending your opinions are facts, and making all kinds of assertions with virtually nothing to back yourself up but arguments from incredulity. You mock others when you fail, and you try to shift the burden of proof away from your shaky claims.

You have "suspicions" but you don't dig to find out anything concrete. You cite an obviously biased "Global Warming Policy Foundation" that refuses to list who its contributors are. They use dodgy graphs and shady practices in their efforts to argue against AGW. In short, you discuss AGW like an oil exec who is paid to mislead.

I looked these guys up using your link, and WOW, YOU ARE RIGHT! Shady as any tax exempt educational charity I ever ran across. BRAZENLY ADVOCATING "open, frank debate"! The horror! THE HORROR!!!

And oh, yeah, they might have an ax to grind, but it ain't your ax.

Is that the problem you have with them? Tell old Uncle Harold, now...

Luckily, there is an extraordinary amount of extraordinary evidence that the extraordinary rises in CO2 are largely man-made.

I know. Extraordinary, isn't it.

"Man-made up", more like. And I have provided examples of why I find such "evidence" of severely limited value. If you believe everything you read on the Internet you have bigger problems than dear old Harold the critical thinker. Edited by Harold Squared
##### Share on other sites

critical thinker and advocate for the truth. <snip> dear old Harold the critical thinker.

##### Share on other sites

I assure you I am not paid to do any of this and I do my very best to be truthful. This includes the arson investigation thread in "Science Education" by the way. Hopefully it will be enlightening for our dear brother Unity.

I don't see anything in the thread that is useful for this discussion.

##### Share on other sites

I don't see anything in the thread that is useful for this discussion.

It is pretty much what you had asked for. What did you want me to "retract" anyhow?

Anyway, by now we have pretty much established that yes, kindly old Uncle Harold is a skeptic. Pretty much mystified why everyone isn't, actually.

There have been books written on how to go about converting our kind, again, like manuals for missionaries more than anything else. As far as I know, no such works have been necessary to "convert" people to quantum mechanics or similar legitimate science.

##### Share on other sites

We've got the government writing up plans on how to best take advantage of an ice free arctic.

http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2013_Arctic_Strategy.pdf

The Denialist approach reminds me of the Man in a Boat parable. Multiple sources say something world changing is occurring and the man on the roof stays up there refusing to accept the evidence.

I headed up to just South of the border with Canada was greeted by the, admittedly, welcome sight of no snow on the ground. It's like Global warming is a myth, huh? Tell me another joke. Maybe that one about the Pacific Garbage Patch and dead coral reefs will be up up next.

##### Share on other sites

We've got the government writing up plans on how to best take advantage of an ice free arctic.

http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2013_Arctic_Strategy.pdf

The Denialist approach reminds me of the Man in a Boat parable. Multiple sources say something world changing is occurring and the man on the roof stays up there refusing to accept the evidence.

I headed up to just South of the border with Canada was greeted by the, admittedly, welcome sight of no snow on the ground. It's like Global warming is a myth, huh? Tell me another joke. Maybe that one about the Pacific Garbage Patch and dead coral reefs will be up up next.

The United States government has made contingency plans by the score, this does not necessarily imply any particular contingency is inevitable. Furthermore, it is entirely possible for the Arctic to be ice free by means other than those related to CO2 concentration. Your anecdotal observations are just that, and a lack of snow can just as easily be caused by a dearth of moisture as a lack of heat. A colder world necessarily would be a drier one, with more water locked up in glaciers. In fact Ice Age settlements have been identified on continental shelves, as I recall. MyFlorida.com or whatever, it is easy enough to find.

Is your anecdotal "man" on a boat or a roof, anyway, you are not making a hell of a lot of sense.

You want a joke? Okay, farmer's wife is on the bed, he walks in with a sheep under his arm, he says, "This pig is what I have to use when you're not up for sex." She says, "That is a sheep, you prick." He says, "I was talking to the sheep."

Edited by Harold Squared
##### Share on other sites

It is pretty much what you had asked for. What did you want me to "retract" anyhow?

Anyway, by now we have pretty much established that yes, kindly old Uncle Harold is a skeptic. Pretty much mystified why everyone isn't, actually.

There have been books written on how to go about converting our kind, again, like manuals for missionaries more than anything else. As far as I know, no such works have been necessary to "convert" people to quantum mechanics or similar legitimate science.

I wanted you to retract your statement, in regard to our "debate," that we know that intentional fires are what are a part of the problem and are occurring in this context, as you have stated.

##### Share on other sites

The United States government has made contingency plans by the score, this does not necessarily imply any particular contingency is inevitable. Furthermore, it is entirely possible for the Arctic to be ice free by means other than those related to CO2 concentration. Your anecdotal observations are just that, and a lack of snow can just as easily be caused by a dearth of moisture as a lack of heat. A colder world necessarily would be a drier one, with more water locked up in glaciers. In fact Ice Age settlements have been identified on continental shelves, as I recall. MyFlorida.com or whatever, it is easy enough to find.

It was too warm.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/us/minneapolis-mn/55415/month/348794?monyr=12/01/2014

These temperatures made me happy and really how bad can a lack of snow melt be?

If you want something easier to relate to:

OVER the next two weeks, hundreds of millions of people will watch Americans like Ted Ligety and Mikaela Shiffrin ski for gold on the downhill alpine course. Television crews will pan across epic vistas of the rugged Caucasus Mountains, draped with brilliant white ski slopes. What viewers might not see is the 16 million cubic feet of snow that was stored under insulated blankets last year to make sure those slopes remained white, or the hundreds of snow-making guns that have been running around the clock to keep them that way.

Officials canceled two Olympic test events last February in Sochi after several days of temperatures above 60 degrees Fahrenheit and a lack of snowfall had left ski trails bare and brown in spots.

I was floored by how much snow had already disappeared from the planet, not to mention how much was predicted to melt in my lifetime. The ski season in parts of British Columbia is four to five weeks shorter than it was 50 years ago, and in eastern Canada, the season is predicted to drop to less than two months by midcentury. At Lake Tahoe, spring now arrives two and a half weeks earlier, and some computer models predict that the Pacific Northwest will receive 40 to 70 percent less snow by 2050. If greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise — they grew 41 percent between 1990 and 2008 — then snowfall, winter and skiing will no longer exist as we know them by the end of the century.

The effect on the ski industry has already been significant. Between 1999 and 2010, low snowfall years cost the industry $1 billion and up to 27,000 jobs. Oregon took the biggest hit out West, with 31 percent fewer skier visits during low snow years. Next was Washington at 28 percent, Utah at 14 percent and Colorado at 7.7 percent. The winter sports industry contributes$66 billion annually to the nation’s economy, and supports more than 960,000 jobs across 38 states, according to the Outdoor Industry Association. A surprisingly large sector of the United States economy appears to be teetering on the brink.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-snow.html?_r=0

“I’m reading a book to my children and I hear the tapping of the rain in my ear. Rain? Rain??? Rain in the middle of December? In Siberia?” a woman from Krasnoyarsk told the Siberian Times.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/19/3091181/russia-promises-snow/

##### Share on other sites

I wanted you to retract your statement, in regard to our "debate," that we know that intentional fires are what are a part of the problem and are occurring in this context, as you have stated.

ANALOGY, for God's sake look it up. If intentional fires of various kinds were not maintained in electrical generation plants here and there, there would be no idiotic arguments on the Internet.

Go ahead and hold your breath waiting for a retraction then, it will be that much less CO2 emitted, Brother.

Anecdote, anecdote, anecdote. I won't ask for peer reviewed literature attesting to the significance of these events but point out that the cause of same has not been determined. As usual. By all means, Brother, keep shoveling. Not all your Brethren seem aware of the extent mass media is involved in the controversy.

As for skiing, I won't cry a goddam tear if it disappears from the face of the Earth forever, it kills people, e.g. Sonny Bono. SEE! You are not the only one who can play the stupid anecdote game.

Edited by Harold Squared
##### Share on other sites

The anecdotes are in hopes that they might convince you where mountains of evidence has failed. Most relate to tales of experiences of other human beings best.

Give someone the quantity that a Californian almond farm pumps out of the ground and their eyes glaze over. Tell someone about a family watching their well dry up as a result and they take note.

You've got all kinds of charts and reports posted in this thread. There is video and/or satellite imagery of the principally impacted areas out there online.

You don't want anecdotes, okay. Then what evidence would convince you?

##### Share on other sites

For my part, I have suspicions regarding the timing of such a discovery. So many allegedly competent researchers, slaving away through years of tireless and dedicated swilling at the public trough, I mean, research, and it took them so long to come up with so little?
Are you talking about the discovery of a Northwest Passage? Not just years - why deprecate the effort? It was centuries, and it cost lives as well as treasure. Not even the natives knew of one, even in legend.

And then one year is was found easily, and now it's getting to be routine. They find one almost every year now, now, with little effort.

##### Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

×