I'd be interested in something like this.
Global Warming -- How to Talk to a Skeptic
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
I'd be interested in something like this.
The latest cold snap set zero records for cold temperatures, apparently.
https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2606
https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2606
At last you give a link I use regularly. . . .
The present weather pattern is moving to a zonal flow though there is still a high "bump" along the west coast. . . but today it looks like California will get a little rain. I think the drought in California is likely as big an economic disaster as the cold and snow in the northeast/central plains/south. . .
It's just terrible to tell me, though, that Detroit has failed to reaach zero only four times in the record books while my ranch, at 4800' elevation in the Great Basin has failed to reach zero four times in December 2013 alone, not to mention each of the past three years.
Looking at geological ice age maps the most remarkable things I see besides Antarctica and Greenland whose elevations of large areas much higher than 4800' definitely have been reasons for the ice accumulations, is the glaciers from Hudson Bay to the Great Lakes at elevations of around a thousand feet reach much lower lattitudes. The reason? Persistent patterns like this winter and last summer's record cold "summer" in the Arctic.
I still don't think "Ice Ages" are really the effect of lower global temps though after an ice age is established the lower temps over the ice areas will contribute towards that. I think ice ages are caused by oceanic evaporation and consequent winter snows inland. The Gulf of Mexico is part of the reason the ice sheets reach as far south as Ohio. . . . No such ice sheets reach as far south in Russia, which is cut off from the warmer seas by high mountain ranges to the south. . . .
You can go on trying to prove anthropogenic effects and resultant impending catastrophes all you want. I've believed we're coming into a new ice age for a long time already, and if you want some bang for the collective economic buck towards actually solving practical problems, start shifting essential industries as well as financial/service capitals south, and get more people relocated in some areas that aren't going to become impractical locations. Al Gore is despicable for his "carbon credit" fraudulent schemes for enriching himself. If you really want to advance your view credibly, start outing foul fraudsters like the whole UN racket ASAP.
Otherwise, you just look like a fascist to me, posing as a "progressive" with a little raft of phony science bought and paid for to back you up.
The present weather pattern is moving to a zonal flow though there is still a high "bump" along the west coast. . . but today it looks like California will get a little rain. I think the drought in California is likely as big an economic disaster as the cold and snow in the northeast/central plains/south. . .
It's just terrible to tell me, though, that Detroit has failed to reaach zero only four times in the record books while my ranch, at 4800' elevation in the Great Basin has failed to reach zero four times in December 2013 alone, not to mention each of the past three years.
Looking at geological ice age maps the most remarkable things I see besides Antarctica and Greenland whose elevations of large areas much higher than 4800' definitely have been reasons for the ice accumulations, is the glaciers from Hudson Bay to the Great Lakes at elevations of around a thousand feet reach much lower lattitudes. The reason? Persistent patterns like this winter and last summer's record cold "summer" in the Arctic.
I still don't think "Ice Ages" are really the effect of lower global temps though after an ice age is established the lower temps over the ice areas will contribute towards that. I think ice ages are caused by oceanic evaporation and consequent winter snows inland. The Gulf of Mexico is part of the reason the ice sheets reach as far south as Ohio. . . . No such ice sheets reach as far south in Russia, which is cut off from the warmer seas by high mountain ranges to the south. . . .
You can go on trying to prove anthropogenic effects and resultant impending catastrophes all you want. I've believed we're coming into a new ice age for a long time already, and if you want some bang for the collective economic buck towards actually solving practical problems, start shifting essential industries as well as financial/service capitals south, and get more people relocated in some areas that aren't going to become impractical locations. Al Gore is despicable for his "carbon credit" fraudulent schemes for enriching himself. If you really want to advance your view credibly, start outing foul fraudsters like the whole UN racket ASAP.
Otherwise, you just look like a fascist to me, posing as a "progressive" with a little raft of phony science bought and paid for to back you up.
I'm down on belief. I prefer evidence. However, I have no expectation of changing your belief with evidence.
I don't accept scientific results when I like them and reject them when I don't.
If it is faulty it should be rejected regardless of wether you like it or not. That is what he was really saying but you already knew that.
That's a very pollyannaish view of using the phrase 'posing as a "progressive" with a little raft of phony science bought and paid for to back you up.' to describe the overwhelming consensus on global warming. That clause is wrong in at least 4 distinct ways, only one of which has anything to do with whether the science involved has any value. He might say he's just rejecting faulty science, he might even believe it, but the reality is that he is rejecting mainstream, valid science.
I don't particularly care if any poster chooses to believe something against reality. However, I reserve the right to point out when their beliefs go against reality, even if they have confused the two.
Im not getting into all that. You simply took his comment in a way he clearly did not mean it. He is not cherry picking studies simply because he does not like them. He is suggesting that some of the studies on this particular subject are "paid for". Meaning they are faulty on purpose.
If that is the case they should be. Notice the use of "if" in the sentence before this one and in the one you quoted before this.
I'm not up to an argument on what babe meant by his remarks. I'll only say that you can say, believe, and mean one thing, yet your position turns out to be something else entirely.
Lol, who would have thought that you of all people would turn down a word game argument.
I've never played them. I strive for consistency in how I use words, and to use them the same way that experts use them. I acknowledge that this means sometimes I use them differently from the general public, so it looks like a word game at times.
Also, I've always separated what people intended/meant and what their actions were.
Hahahahahaha. You amaze me. I'm not attacking you at all. Actually the opposite. Your dedication to your interpretation of reality is just astounding. That level of dedication needs to be admired.
I'd rep you if I have not recently done so.
All humans are dedicated to their own interpretations of reality, I'm no exception.
You're just as dedicated to the notion that I do play word games instead of making serious arguments. So much so, that you believe it despite never being able to bring up situations where I am playing them.