New IPCC report is out

[_Morley]

Thank you for the considerable time and effort, RI.

[_Water Dog]

RI, do you want to have a good faith discussion and move forward, or not?

You say

Leaving off the last sentence leaves the impression that global warming will occur over such a long time that there is no reason to take significant measures now. That's not what the article says at all. The last sentence makes that clear.

You might have a point if I was making an argument that "there is no reason to take significant measures now" because "global warming will occur over such a long time" that it's insignificant. But I said no such thing. Are you intentionally lying about the argument I was actually making, or are you genuinely confused?

But what WD is apparently saying is that he somehow missed the next two sentences after the piece of the abstract he cut and pasted.

I said no such thing. RI, what is it that you actually want to have a debate about? Global warming, the IPCC report, or me? I read that whole article prior to my post. I did not read the paper Ball was citing to see the abstract as they presented it. I was not even aware the quotations came from the abstract as opposed to elsewhere in the body of the paper. I didn't care. And I still don't. I grabbed the quote the way I did simply out of convenience because that's how it appeared in Ball's article. Cut, paste, done. And then in an attempt to be honest, I included the link to the original source in case anybody wanted to get into it. The excluded sentence makes no difference one way or the other because I was making a point that is completely different from the point you seem think I was making. Repeated several times now, the only point I was making is that the effect of an emission is measured in decades, as opposed to days or weeks. IPCC report is based on models, not empirical results. Models which cannot be tested for at least another decade or two. This is a running bullet point in these global warming debates. I was merely tossing out one source I happened to have recently seen that substantiates this point. I can go find a hundred others if you like. The point remains the same. Skeptics say, "test the model." Alarmists say, "okay, but gotta wait a few decades. Oh, and we might be dead by then."

Now, an honest, stand up guy when caught doing something like this would respond by telling the truth. Something like: hey guys, I got really careless and copied this from a secondary source that split the abstract into two quotes and I missed the second part.

That is almost exactly what I did. I didn't do it exactly the way you think I should have done it though, because, well, you're an asshole. I wanted to see how far people would go with this "water dog is a liar" shtick. You jumped right out the gate accusing me of intentionally omitting relevant details. But I didn't. Not only did I not intentionally omit anything, the details weren't and aren't relevant! But you keep going on with this. I never was making the point you think I was making.

this is about 13 hours

Are you serious right now? I am obligated to reply to you within a certain period of time? lol

didn't read every word, but I scanned though the article

More lies. The article presents results from the SAME MODEL run using different starting assumptions. How did WD get it so wrong? It's only a two-page article!

Let me get this straight. I literally said, upfront, that I only scanned the article, and you're calling me a liar because apparently I goofed on something as a consequence of, that's right, scanning the article?

by the way, when you change the assumptions, you change the model. That's called a different model. It doesn't matter if you're running the same code. If you change the input, the stuff that happens inside is different. I don't want to quibble, this is so petty, but you just called me a liar. But, again, I only scanned it. I don't know if it was the same "code" or "model" that they ran or not. I'll take you at your word. I don't care.... because ... again ... it has nothing to do with my point. I am not interesting in either agreeing or disagreeing with these authors. It's a random source that merely backs up the basic fact, taken for granted in climate science community, that emissions cause effects that cannot be measured until much later. How much later, exactly, is a point of constant debate and inquiry. That isn't even known. This paper isn't validated by empirical data either, it just presents some models, or a model. But thought to be, as this one paper states, on the order of decades. To my point, the point I was actually making, the shorter the effect the better... because that leaves less excuse for failing to validate models with actual empirical data.

My god. All I'm trying to do here is have a good faith discussion. I was not trying to play with strawmen or make appeals to authority. I damn sure wasn't trying to misrepresent someone's research to win points in "Spirit Paradise." I was simply trying to make a point. But you guys love links and sources and all that crap, so I tossed one in there to go with it. That's it.

My basic point remains. In my view the IPCC report is total garbage. It's politics. It's not science. Historically, they've never gotten anything right. The report is not based on empirical data. It's based on model forecasts, which I have no reason to pay any credence whatsoever.

I'll tell you what, RI. I make a pledge right here and now. If you can prove me wrong. Show me actual data that proves CAGW true, I will pledge to only vote for pols that support your lefty climate change solutions.

Not some mickey mouse gotcha bet. I'm talking a real debate here. You are the Mormon apologist. You claim Nephites are real. I call BS. My inability to prove your negative isn't a "win" for you. The burden is with you. You show me catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Unequivocal. Not some warming. Not that man can have some effect. Not typical cyclic weather patterns conflated with the climate change boogeyman. I'm not disputing physics or any other well established natural principles. And I'm pretty good at math so I can read all these papers and understand them quite well if I really put the effort into it. So enough games. I'm not an idiot. I'm definitely not dishonest. I am sick of this. Here's what I propose, we create a new thread for this debate. And then we have rules about who can participate and how participation must be engaged in. When little twats show up with their nasty remarks, you need to be calling that BS out. You act like I'm held to some immense standard, I don't present arguments and references and such in just the right way, it's a sign of malice on my part, this is high hypocrisy on your part. The kind of serious, high minded, thorough discussion that you're talking about cannot take place unless those standards of civility are enforced on both sides.

[_Res Ipsa]

I agree with your assertion that you don’t care, WD. You don’t care to take the time and effort needed to understand what’s true and what’s not. You just grab any snippet from any denier source without ever checking their veracity or context. And when you’re called on it, you dodge, weasel, avoid, evade and mislead. You never own your own missteps — you blame everyone else and accuse them of lying or being mean or acting in bad faith. And so you never learn. You just go on doing the same thing over and over.

And because you don’t care, it’s disingenuous to ask about having a good faith conversation. It’s impossible because you approach the entire issue of climate change in extreme bad faith. Because you don’t care.

[_Jersey Girl]

And when you’re called on it, you dodge, weasel, avoid, evade and mislead. You never own your own missteps — you blame everyone else and accuse them of lying or being mean or acting in bad faith. And so you never learn. You just go on doing the same thing over and over.

Prevaricate.
Name call.

Just adding to the list.

[_Res Ipsa]

And when you’re called on it, you dodge, weasel, avoid, evade and mislead. You never own your own missteps — you blame everyone else and accuse them of lying or being mean or acting in bad faith. And so you never learn. You just go on doing the same thing over and over.

Prevaricate.
Name call.

Just adding to the list.

Welcome back. Hope you had a great trip.

[_canpakes]

So which is it? Is hurricane michael evidence of global warming, or the opposite? Or evidence of nothing at all?

Imma just gonna capture this one for time and eternity before Dog erases it, as it is a wonderful example of why denialists cannot honestly argue their way out of a paper bag on this topic. : )

[_Jersey Girl]

Welcome back. Hope you had a great trip.

Came home sick, still sick as a flippin' dog right now and yes, we had a great time!

[_Res Ipsa]

Sorry to hear you got sick, but glad you had a good time.

[_canpakes]

... the only point I was making is that the effect of an emission is measured in decades, as opposed to days or weeks.

Who were you arguing with, regarding that? I’m not aware of anyone warning that we’ll see a measurable rise in sea levels next week over what we measure today because you drove to the market in an SUV.

Models which cannot be tested for at least another decade or two.

Why is that a problem? And what is your solution to this? Do nothing? Use old data that ignores new conditions to prepare for future situations?

Let me get this straight. I literally said, upfront, that I only scanned the article, and you're calling me a liar because apparently I goofed on something as a consequence of, that's right, scanning the article?

If you’re going to put something out there that supposedly supports your argument, then yes, you should present the evidence honestly and completely.

As it is, you left out that last line and made this complaint about the specific process you were referring to:

Isn't that convenient. A theory, output from a model, which cannot be tested or disproved.

So you were complaining that we cannot ‘test or disprove’ at all. This was proven incorrect by the last line you omitted.

But now, you’re trying to move the goalposts to ‘a few days or weeks’. Lol.

And now for more goalpost moving:

You show me catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Unequivocal. Not some warming. Not that man can have some effect.

So ‘some warming’ no longer is in dispute, and you’ve decided that only ‘catastrophic’ warming is what the debate is about?

Are you going to define what qualifies as ‘catastrophic’, in your opinion, or do we just wait for you to waffle on that later, as well?

[_canpakes]

... discuss the politics of getting government to move in a direction that might actually start doing something other than ignoring the urgent issues raised.

Chap, with WD’s chaff now out of the way, I’d be interested in your opinion on practical policy ideas that can address the potential changes and damages, while avoiding being pegged by a large enough segment of the population as too costly, alarmist or ‘economically damaging’.