The Great CAGW Debate

[_Chap]

Try firing up a stogie; it might put some hair on your balls for the first time in your life.

Yup. You ain't a real man till you've had either lung or mouth cancer.



(Gender insecurity much?)

[_Water Dog]

Now, the thread went on for five more pages. Dog's response? Crickets.

Open invitation: Show the data and the computation for a 17-year cooling trend.

More dishonesty. Again, RI, I'm not sure who you are "presenting" to? Is there some audience out there I'm unaware of? I didn't respond to this because YOU acted the part of the scoundrel by disingenuously accusing me of lying before there was a chance for me to respond. Then the thread took a whole different direction. A direction in which YOU took it. Which is something you know... which makes this entire post disingenuous... which makes it a lie... which makes you a liar.

I start this new thread, attempting to reset. In which I suggested starting from the basics, from scratch. I said, "Round 1 - Are there warming trends? Let's examine whether warming exists or not." Your response to all this is to continue acting the part of the scoundrel. But then when I say "peace out," suddenly you want to talk about science, as if I'm the one that ducked that conversation. SMH.

Dude, I'm just not going to play these games.

If you want to talk about cooling trends, cool, I'm happy to get into all that. But I'm not going to play these games with you, which is what you're doing right now. I am not going to spend a whole bunch of time looking up data, reading the science, formulating an argument, typing it up, only to have you and your gang of prison bitches mock me. That just isn't reasonable. I'm not going to expend that kind of effort for a discussion that isn't going to happen in good faith.

[_canpakes]

Hey, Dog -

You used this image as some sort of argument about ... something ... in the other thread:



Could you tell us more about this ‘excitation’, and how that plays into this debate? Or maybe explain how hurricanes gain strength anyway, since you’re trying to make some sort of point with this?

Thanks.

[_Water Dog]

Could you tell us more about this ‘excitation’, and how that plays into this debate? Or maybe explain how hurricanes gain strength anyway, since you’re trying to make some sort of point with this?

It plays into the point of politicization. When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Confirmation bias. That's a lefty passionately talking about hurricane michael as proof of global warming. It's not. As Lindzen points out, the same models which predict global warming, they also predict a decrease in tropical storms. These storms form as a consequence of temperature differentials between poles and the equator. If global warming is true, a consequence of that is a decrease, not an increase, in those temperature differentials. Which means less tropical storms, and weaker tropical storms.

[_Water Dog]

Here's an interesting post.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/15/ ... by-mclean/

Without specifically admitting he has found serious errors, they acknowledge his previous notifications were useful in 2016, and promise “errors will be fixed in the next update.” That’s nice to know, but begs the question of why a PhD student working from home can find mistakes that the £226 million institute with 2,100 employees could not. Significantly, they do not disagree with any of his claims.

Most significantly they don’t even mention killer issue of the adjustments for site moves — the cumulative cooling of the oldest records to compensate for buildings that probably weren’t built there ’til decades later.

On the other thread I posted

Are climate models that the IPCC relies on based on an erratic dataset?

https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/52041/

https://www.breitbart.com/big-governmen ... able-data/

To which I got these responses.

Oh lookie, another moron on the internet posting anonymously while citing Brietbart while pretending to care about science.

I can think of few things more damaging to one's credibility than citing Breitbart as a source, except maybe citing Infowars or a flat earther site.

Every field of science had its cranks and outliers. When you cite some guy’s PhD thesis or op-Ed’s by fringe scientists, you are ignoring the actual science.

Bulls***! So what research studies have you read and analyzed? Do you understand all the variables and equations? So explain this equation to me! ΔF = αln(C/Co)

RI wants to spin yarn and lob personal attacks at me. So my point here is just to highlight what actually went down. I posted a completely polite comment which was relevant and on point. I was called a moron. Told that I lost my credibility. Compared with cranks and fringe outliers. Something about an equation.

Did anybody actually answer my question, "Are climate models that the IPCC relies on based on an erratic dataset?" No. The response was to ignore my comment, and lob personal attacks. Now, it turns out, more information is coming out that in fact confirms the validity of this PhD thesis. How this impacts the overall debate is to be seen.

Jo makes a good point. Why is it that skeptics always seem to be the ones that find the errors in climate data, hockey sticks, and other data machinations produced by the well-funded climate complex?

Perhaps it is because they simply don’t care, and curiosity takes a back seat to money. Like politicians looking to the next election, Climate Inc. has become so dependent on the money train, their main concern is the next grant application.

[_canpakes]

Could you tell us more about this ‘excitation’, and how that plays into this debate? Or maybe explain how hurricanes gain strength anyway, since you’re trying to make some sort of point with this?

It plays into the point of politicization. When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Confirmation bias. That's a lefty passionately talking about hurricane michael as proof of global warming. It's not. As Lindzen points out, the same models which predict global warming, they also predict a decrease in tropical storms. These storms form as a consequence of temperature differentials between poles and the equator. If global warming is true, a consequence of that is a decrease, not an increase, in those temperature differentials. Which means less tropical storms, and weaker tropical storms.

Dog, you may want to look into this further. LIndzen’s ‘excitation’ process actually refers to extratropical storms. This process is not in play with hurricanes.

Regardless of the veracity of the claim about climate change pushing hurricanes to be stronger, Lindzen’s claim has nothing to do with that part of the debate.

[_Res Ipsa]

Exactly, Canpakes. You see the slight of hand? Dog took a snippet from a 12 year old Lindzen Op Ed that doesn’t apply to hurricanes and acted like it applies to hurricanes! That’s how global warming denial BS gets spread around the internet. These guys generate tons of false and misleading factoids, graphs, memes, and cartoons, and people like WD, who don’t care enough to inform themselves, lap it up and repeat it. If Dog had wanted to know about hurricane formation, there is plenty of information on the internet, And had he done so, he would have rapidly understood that the phenomenon Lindzen is talking about had nothing to do with hurricanes. But Dog didn’t look, cuz Dog don’t care.

[_Water Dog]

Dog, you may want to look into this further. LIndzen’s ‘excitation’ process actually refers to extratropical storms. This process is not in play with hurricanes.

Regardless of the veracity of the claim about climate change pushing hurricanes to be stronger, Lindzen’s claim has nothing to do with that part of the debate.

Ok, I think I see what you're getting at. A valid point. Although I'm not sure what the actual difference is. Worth pointing out, Lindzen didn't author that tweet. If there is some technicality we're quibbling over (extra vs sub vs tropical), perhaps someone misapplied Lindzen's statement in this situation. The basic point is that global warming, if true, would ultimately lead to less storms such as these. Is that not accurate? You may be right about how this particular storm system formed. No idea.

[_Water Dog]

You see the slight of hand? Dog took a snippet from a 12 year old Lindzen Op Ed that doesn’t apply to hurricanes and acted like it applies to hurricanes!

Am I Tom Nelson?

[_Res Ipsa]

You see the slight of hand? Dog took a snippet from a 12 year old Lindzen opening post Ed that doesn’t apply to hurricanes and acted like it applies to hurricanes!

Am I Tom Nelson?

No, you’re the guy who doesn’t care, remember? You don’t care enough to check the false and misleading BS off of denialist websites before you post it. Whether you are the dishonest initiator or the useful idiot disseminator, you are complicit. All because having your “team” win is more important than the truth.