"And yet here you are tracking me down in another thread."
It's not "another thread". It's the same one. Different sub-thread, though.
I just figured that turnabout is fair play. You obviously were doing that to me, so I just figured you might enjoy a bit of your own medicine.
"That's funny because that's the reason I always call you out on your AGW denial bullshit."
No, what's funny is the fact that you think you have. But in actual fact all you have ever done is contradict. You have not presented one fact, or one actual, logical argument, to support your case.
I don't see any "shouting" anywhere. And why should anybody need to support me? Unlike you, I can formulate my own arguments, and back them with actual facts.
Do you realize how pathetic you look? Somehow, I don't think you do.
I encourage you to challenge him on his BS. When actually challenged, he shuts up (because he never seems to actually be able to back up his statements with logic or facts). And that is a relief for us all.:o)
"Then there's the COv2 is not a pollutant, even though, as a relative output outside of the natural chemistry of the Earth (the effect of living creatures and other processes) it does count as a deposit which changes the chemistry of the surrounding environment, ergo, pollution."
Haha. That almost seems like a logical argument on its face, but it doesn't pass the reductio ad absurdum test, because you could say exactly the same, with the same logic and sincerity, about oxygen and water.
"Muncton also advocated that every man, woman and child in the United States should be tested monthly for AIDS and anyone detected with signs of an infection should be "permanently removed from the population". He a right-wing conservative crackpot."
Ad hominem arguments will get you nowhere.
As the article you linked to yourself says, "...eccentricity doesnâ(TM)t matter, if heâ(TM)s right about the science."
Well, apparently the American Physical Society thinks he is, at least in the case of AGW. His other exploits don't matter.
In case you still don't get it: you will have to refute his references, not his own comments, if you want to be making any kind of logical, scientific argument.
This data would seem to directly contradict what you cited.
I'm not claiming it's correct. What I am claiming is that you can't attack the person and expect others to take you seriously. It is the science that matters. Even idiots and fools can be correct now and then. Not that I am saying Moncton is either; you implied as much. You might say his credibility is low. My point is simply that it doesn't matter. It is the evidence he presents that is what you need to focus on, not his personality.
Scientists backing evolution and gravity do not go about saying "It's true because so-and-so, and all his cronies, say it's true!"
On the contrary; they back those ideas because of the overwhelming evidence in favor of those theories. There is little in the way of contrary evidence, and predictions based on those theories have a proven track record.
The situation with AGW is very much in contrast: there is quite a bit of contrary evidence, the models have a lousy track record of predicting anything real, and the evidence in favor of AGW theory is thin at best.
AND... people go around saying "It's true because the IPCC and their 'thousands' of scientists said so!" All the while ignoring those -- like this group of 16 -- who say it's not so. And those "thousands" are not even real... there were only a couple of hundred actual scientists at best who actually contributed to the IPCC reports. The rest were reviewers, many of whom were not scientists at all; some were schoolteachers, and there was even a janitor or two.
Hahaha. It would be really funny if it were not so tragic.
And yet the person who made that other reply won't give you any actual examples, because he can't. He backed himself into a corner again, and will henceforth be silent on the matter. Count on it.
"I threw that at you because you're just puffing about it, and not being specific. And you're still doing everything you can to avoid it. Which is entirely predictable."
Precisely. I said exactly the same thing about him in another sub-thread. He likes to call other people trolls and idiots, but when challenged to actually back up his bluffs, he is invariably (and very predictably) silent.
He is nothing but a troll himself, of the worst kind: the kind who deludes himself into thinking that he's actually not.
But challenge him, and the true nature of his thinking comes out. I.e., he doesn't know how to do it for himself. He simply echoes others, and then clams up when it turns out he can't defend his position.
The only people who say "there is no doubt" are the True Believers. And you have proven to be one of them. You have no place in a scientific discussion. Yes, in case you aren't quite sure what I am saying: I place you right in there with the Intelligent Designers.
"At this stage the only one's arguing the contrary are those that are arguing from a political point of view, and those that are paid to do so."
Absolute BS. Burt Rutan is not getting paid to say what he did. Nor are the other scientists on the list. In fact, if you bothered to actually read about it, you would find that at least one of them resigned his paying position because he could no longer in good conscience have his name associated with their bad science.
You simply won't let facts get in your way, will you? You just continue to preach your AGW Gospel.
Get this through your head: when somebody says "the science is settled", you can bet your last nickel that it's not, and that they are trying to sell you something. Science is never "settled". That's not the way it works.
I won't try to discourage you from being one of the "buyers", if that's what you want to be, but I won't stand idle while you preach to innocent people your distorted view of the real picture surrounding AGW.
Don't take it personally. BasilBrush has proven to all that he (if he is a "he") is a True Believer in anthropogenic global warming, and he will not let mere facts or logic get in the way of his preaching of the One True Faith.
For example, he really knows how to cherry-pick his "evidence". Never mind that anybody else can do the same.
In case you still don't get it: you have proved to everybody beyond reasonable doubt that you are nothing but a TROLL. Why do you even bother to appear here? Nobody likes your kind.
"You're a freak who lies about his politics, his gender, and posts stuff on global warming that he knows is false."
Oooh... look! A third reply! Wow. I must be really, really rattled, eh?
So, I call your bluff. (Which is pretty easy to do, since all you have been doing is bluffing... you haven't presented one bit of evidence this evening that actually supports your statements.)
You make 4 claims here. I challenge you to give evidence for them.
(A) That I am a "freak". I am not really sure what you mean by that, in this context, but "freak" is generally accepted to be an insult. Please, if you will, explain to us all what you mean by "freak" here. Because I really do not know. A mutant? Someone who is deformed? Someone who has (physical) brain damage? What do you mean by "freak"? Please enlighten us. There was a time when "freak" meant someone who smokes pot. But I doubt that's what you mean here. And provide some evidence to back up your claim. Otherwise we will laugh at you. More, that is.
(B) That I lie about my gender. This one really tickles me. Okay, bud. Evidence time. Let's have some. I think this is just a pathetic macho reaction because you don't have the spine to admit you can be bested by a woman.
(C) That I lie about my politics. You have repeatedly made claims that I am not just a right-winger, but sometimes you have stated that I was a "conservative" right winger, and other times that I was a radical right-winger. And I have claimed that was false. So, the challenge is: let's have some actual evidence that I am really "right-wing". I eagerly await your response. This should be very amusing. I really do expect that it will be amusing, but make no mistake: I am not trolling you here. You made the accusation. Now you can Goddamned well back it up. Or piss off.
(D) That I "post stuff on global warming that [I] know is false." Again, this should be amusing. Since I have made a habit of linking to sources when I post such "stuff", I am curious how you have concluded that I "know" it is "false". Again, I am asking for evidence of that claim, which I have no doubt pisses you off in the extreme. Nevertheless, YOU laid down the gauntlet. Now back it up. Or, as I wrote above: piss off. You aren't going to get it both ways.
Yes, I agree, but I wasn't talking about tree farms per se. I live in an area surrounded by forest, and a large percentage of the National Forests around here have been subject to logging. And while the logging companies have for decades hyped the fact that they planted many more trees than they cut, the big problems were (1) they were often cutting old-growth trees, which is a very different matter, and (2) the trees they were planting were often not native varieties.
So, while the faster-growing trees they planted might be better for sequestering CO2, there are a lot of other environmental factors to take into account.
The main point that was raised in this whole thread, though, was basically (though not in so many words) rainforest being cut down. That is a very different situation from North America, where we arguably have more forest now than when your great-grandfather was born.
Primarily in North America, yes. I haven't denied that. In fact, it is my understand that there is more heavily forested land today in the U.S. than there was 100 years ago.
BUT... I repeat that the general trend does not hold everywhere. Living in a forest area, as I do, I have seen much devastation in my lifetime, including such things as many mountain sides with a full square (and I very much mean square) mile of clearcut, visible from 50 miles away.
Now, I am as willing as the next person to admit that in the long run, a few small areas of clearcut here and there can actually help maintain diversity of a forest. (Small burns are even better but they don't build houses.) But a square mile does no benefit to anybody or anything but the companies making 2x4s and office paper.
AND, I will also be among the first to admit that things have gotten much better here, and elsewhere in forested regions. You don't see those huge clearcuts anymore, but only for the simple reason: they are now illegal.
I repeat also that it didn't get that way until the logging companies were forced to improve their practices. They did not -- they would not -- do it voluntarily. They had to be stopped by government, which in turn was prodded by The People who were sick of experiencing the devastation. And yet... the paper and wood product companies did not fold, as they claimed they would have to if those resources were better protected. Imagine that.
And I repeat yet again: many of those replanted trees have not been the same species as the ones that were "harvested". Instead they have often been faster-growing "pulp" trees that are not even native to the area they are planted.
But that, too, is getting better. And the majority of paper now comes from "farmed" trees. So don't get me wrong. Things are definitely improving. But they would not have, if it had been left up to the logging companies to decide on their own.
"You pop up every time theres a GW thread on Slashdot, with the same old shit. And after the first two rounds of me proving you wrong, only for you to repeat the same shit the next time, it became obvious you're not honest."
Yes, another two posts. Not because I'm "rattled", but because twice I have changed my mind about what I want to state.
The problem is, which you would know if you even remotely know what "proof" was, that you haven't proven me wrong. Not even close. Try again, bud. You fail.
"But some cherry picked data that only becomes true if you pick the right selection of years, such that 4 years matter, has nothing to do with climate trends. Climate trends are over at least 30 years."
That isn't what I did, and if you would bother to read carefully, you would know that.
I did not claim that the weather over the last 4 years had anything to do with it. What I stated was that we know more. 2 very different things.
I second the other poster's comments. In addition, I will point out that dollars of damage is not even close to the same as actual worse weather events. Location (which within certain constraints can be considered random) has everything to do with it..
For example: a tornado that happens to cross Kansas city is going to have a lot higher cost than one that just hits cornfields.
As an analogy (neither weather or climate; just an analogy): the tusunami which struck Japan last year would not have caused nearly as much $ of damage had it occurred out in the middle of the ocean somewhere. However, it would have been just as severe an event.
Some years, you will see fewer weather events, with more $ damage. Other years you will see more weather events with less $ damage. Much like weather vs. climate, it just isn't valid to try to infer cause and effect over anything but a very long period of time.
"You're a man who likes to pretend to be a woman in the internet. In a similar way to how you're a right wing man who likes to pretend he's not."
YOU are a person who (A) likes to pretend he* knows things he actually does not,** and (B) prefers to insult people rather than argue real issues or offer scientific facts.
(* I presume "he", because the name is "Basil". Unlike you, I will presume your gender is what you present it to be, until demonstrated to be otherwise.)
(** Actually, I do not know this for a fact. Maybe you're not pretending, and really do think you know those things. I am not certain, either way. Unlike you, I don't presume to know more than I can support with facts.)
Slashdot Mirror
"And yet here you are tracking me down in another thread."
It's not "another thread". It's the same one. Different sub-thread, though.
I just figured that turnabout is fair play. You obviously were doing that to me, so I just figured you might enjoy a bit of your own medicine.
"That's funny because that's the reason I always call you out on your AGW denial bullshit."
No, what's funny is the fact that you think you have. But in actual fact all you have ever done is contradict. You have not presented one fact, or one actual, logical argument, to support your case.
You're a troll.
I don't see any "shouting" anywhere. And why should anybody need to support me? Unlike you, I can formulate my own arguments, and back them with actual facts.
Do you realize how pathetic you look? Somehow, I don't think you do.
I encourage you to challenge him on his BS. When actually challenged, he shuts up (because he never seems to actually be able to back up his statements with logic or facts). And that is a relief for us all. :o)
"Also, recently explicitly justified..."
Also, recently weasel-worded, you mean.
All that article says, in plain English, is: "If we make our error bars big enough, look! It fits!"
Hahahahaha.
"Then there's the COv2 is not a pollutant, even though, as a relative output outside of the natural chemistry of the Earth (the effect of living creatures and other processes) it does count as a deposit which changes the chemistry of the surrounding environment, ergo, pollution."
Haha. That almost seems like a logical argument on its face, but it doesn't pass the reductio ad absurdum test, because you could say exactly the same, with the same logic and sincerity, about oxygen and water.
Try again.
"Muncton also advocated that every man, woman and child in the United States should be tested monthly for AIDS and anyone detected with signs of an infection should be "permanently removed from the population". He a right-wing conservative crackpot."
Ad hominem arguments will get you nowhere.
As the article you linked to yourself says, "...eccentricity doesnâ(TM)t matter, if heâ(TM)s right about the science."
Well, apparently the American Physical Society thinks he is, at least in the case of AGW. His other exploits don't matter.
In case you still don't get it: you will have to refute his references, not his own comments, if you want to be making any kind of logical, scientific argument.
This data would seem to directly contradict what you cited.
I'm not claiming it's correct. What I am claiming is that you can't attack the person and expect others to take you seriously. It is the science that matters. Even idiots and fools can be correct now and then. Not that I am saying Moncton is either; you implied as much. You might say his credibility is low. My point is simply that it doesn't matter. It is the evidence he presents that is what you need to focus on, not his personality.
You are right. It is non-linear. But not in the direction you seem to assume.
Even the most pessimistic models give a rise in temperature of 3 degrees C for every doubling of CO2 concentration.
We have not been doubling the CO2 concentration via anthropogenic means. We have been contributing only a small percentage of the total.
GP was quite correct, you are not.
Scientists backing evolution and gravity do not go about saying "It's true because so-and-so, and all his cronies, say it's true!"
On the contrary; they back those ideas because of the overwhelming evidence in favor of those theories. There is little in the way of contrary evidence, and predictions based on those theories have a proven track record.
The situation with AGW is very much in contrast: there is quite a bit of contrary evidence, the models have a lousy track record of predicting anything real, and the evidence in favor of AGW theory is thin at best.
AND... people go around saying "It's true because the IPCC and their 'thousands' of scientists said so!" All the while ignoring those -- like this group of 16 -- who say it's not so. And those "thousands" are not even real... there were only a couple of hundred actual scientists at best who actually contributed to the IPCC reports. The rest were reviewers, many of whom were not scientists at all; some were schoolteachers, and there was even a janitor or two.
Hahaha. It would be really funny if it were not so tragic.
And yet the person who made that other reply won't give you any actual examples, because he can't. He backed himself into a corner again, and will henceforth be silent on the matter. Count on it.
"I threw that at you because you're just puffing about it, and not being specific. And you're still doing everything you can to avoid it. Which is entirely predictable."
Precisely. I said exactly the same thing about him in another sub-thread. He likes to call other people trolls and idiots, but when challenged to actually back up his bluffs, he is invariably (and very predictably) silent.
He is nothing but a troll himself, of the worst kind: the kind who deludes himself into thinking that he's actually not.
But challenge him, and the true nature of his thinking comes out. I.e., he doesn't know how to do it for himself. He simply echoes others, and then clams up when it turns out he can't defend his position.
"AGW is no different. There is no doubt."
The only people who say "there is no doubt" are the True Believers. And you have proven to be one of them. You have no place in a scientific discussion. Yes, in case you aren't quite sure what I am saying: I place you right in there with the Intelligent Designers.
"At this stage the only one's arguing the contrary are those that are arguing from a political point of view, and those that are paid to do so."
Absolute BS. Burt Rutan is not getting paid to say what he did. Nor are the other scientists on the list. In fact, if you bothered to actually read about it, you would find that at least one of them resigned his paying position because he could no longer in good conscience have his name associated with their bad science.
You simply won't let facts get in your way, will you? You just continue to preach your AGW Gospel.
Get this through your head: when somebody says "the science is settled", you can bet your last nickel that it's not, and that they are trying to sell you something. Science is never "settled". That's not the way it works.
I won't try to discourage you from being one of the "buyers", if that's what you want to be, but I won't stand idle while you preach to innocent people your distorted view of the real picture surrounding AGW.
Don't take it personally. BasilBrush has proven to all that he (if he is a "he") is a True Believer in anthropogenic global warming, and he will not let mere facts or logic get in the way of his preaching of the One True Faith.
For example, he really knows how to cherry-pick his "evidence". Never mind that anybody else can do the same.
In case you still don't get it: you have proved to everybody beyond reasonable doubt that you are nothing but a TROLL. Why do you even bother to appear here? Nobody likes your kind.
And yet, predictably, you did not respond to any of the challenges to actually back up your statements with any kind of evidence or facts.
Please be so kind as to just go away, and cease wasting everybody's time.
Very close to nothing, since the volume of ice is (in regard to the Arctic) almost negligible considering the total volume of water.
Seriously, man. You'd have to float a pretty tiny ice cube. The difference isn't going to be much. I promise.
Pardon me. I misread. I meant to say that ANTarctic ice is above average. Mea culpa.
Seriously. I should have been reading more carefully.
I don't mind admitting when I'm clearly wrong. That was a definite oops.
"You're a freak who lies about his politics, his gender, and posts stuff on global warming that he knows is false."
Oooh... look! A third reply! Wow. I must be really, really rattled, eh?
So, I call your bluff. (Which is pretty easy to do, since all you have been doing is bluffing... you haven't presented one bit of evidence this evening that actually supports your statements.)
You make 4 claims here. I challenge you to give evidence for them.
(A) That I am a "freak". I am not really sure what you mean by that, in this context, but "freak" is generally accepted to be an insult. Please, if you will, explain to us all what you mean by "freak" here. Because I really do not know. A mutant? Someone who is deformed? Someone who has (physical) brain damage? What do you mean by "freak"? Please enlighten us. There was a time when "freak" meant someone who smokes pot. But I doubt that's what you mean here. And provide some evidence to back up your claim. Otherwise we will laugh at you. More, that is.
(B) That I lie about my gender. This one really tickles me. Okay, bud. Evidence time. Let's have some. I think this is just a pathetic macho reaction because you don't have the spine to admit you can be bested by a woman.
(C) That I lie about my politics. You have repeatedly made claims that I am not just a right-winger, but sometimes you have stated that I was a "conservative" right winger, and other times that I was a radical right-winger. And I have claimed that was false. So, the challenge is: let's have some actual evidence that I am really "right-wing". I eagerly await your response. This should be very amusing. I really do expect that it will be amusing, but make no mistake: I am not trolling you here. You made the accusation. Now you can Goddamned well back it up. Or piss off.
(D) That I "post stuff on global warming that [I] know is false." Again, this should be amusing. Since I have made a habit of linking to sources when I post such "stuff", I am curious how you have concluded that I "know" it is "false". Again, I am asking for evidence of that claim, which I have no doubt pisses you off in the extreme. Nevertheless, YOU laid down the gauntlet. Now back it up. Or, as I wrote above: piss off. You aren't going to get it both ways.
Yes, I agree, but I wasn't talking about tree farms per se. I live in an area surrounded by forest, and a large percentage of the National Forests around here have been subject to logging. And while the logging companies have for decades hyped the fact that they planted many more trees than they cut, the big problems were (1) they were often cutting old-growth trees, which is a very different matter, and (2) the trees they were planting were often not native varieties.
So, while the faster-growing trees they planted might be better for sequestering CO2, there are a lot of other environmental factors to take into account. The main point that was raised in this whole thread, though, was basically (though not in so many words) rainforest being cut down. That is a very different situation from North America, where we arguably have more forest now than when your great-grandfather was born.
Primarily in North America, yes. I haven't denied that. In fact, it is my understand that there is more heavily forested land today in the U.S. than there was 100 years ago.
BUT... I repeat that the general trend does not hold everywhere. Living in a forest area, as I do, I have seen much devastation in my lifetime, including such things as many mountain sides with a full square (and I very much mean square) mile of clearcut, visible from 50 miles away.
Now, I am as willing as the next person to admit that in the long run, a few small areas of clearcut here and there can actually help maintain diversity of a forest. (Small burns are even better but they don't build houses.) But a square mile does no benefit to anybody or anything but the companies making 2x4s and office paper.
AND, I will also be among the first to admit that things have gotten much better here, and elsewhere in forested regions. You don't see those huge clearcuts anymore, but only for the simple reason: they are now illegal.
I repeat also that it didn't get that way until the logging companies were forced to improve their practices. They did not -- they would not -- do it voluntarily. They had to be stopped by government, which in turn was prodded by The People who were sick of experiencing the devastation. And yet... the paper and wood product companies did not fold, as they claimed they would have to if those resources were better protected. Imagine that.
And I repeat yet again: many of those replanted trees have not been the same species as the ones that were "harvested". Instead they have often been faster-growing "pulp" trees that are not even native to the area they are planted.
But that, too, is getting better. And the majority of paper now comes from "farmed" trees. So don't get me wrong. Things are definitely improving. But they would not have, if it had been left up to the logging companies to decide on their own.
"You pop up every time theres a GW thread on Slashdot, with the same old shit. And after the first two rounds of me proving you wrong, only for you to repeat the same shit the next time, it became obvious you're not honest."
Yes, another two posts. Not because I'm "rattled", but because twice I have changed my mind about what I want to state.
The problem is, which you would know if you even remotely know what "proof" was, that you haven't proven me wrong. Not even close. Try again, bud. You fail.
"But some cherry picked data that only becomes true if you pick the right selection of years, such that 4 years matter, has nothing to do with climate trends. Climate trends are over at least 30 years."
That isn't what I did, and if you would bother to read carefully, you would know that.
I did not claim that the weather over the last 4 years had anything to do with it. What I stated was that we know more. 2 very different things.
I second the other poster's comments. In addition, I will point out that dollars of damage is not even close to the same as actual worse weather events. Location (which within certain constraints can be considered random) has everything to do with it..
For example: a tornado that happens to cross Kansas city is going to have a lot higher cost than one that just hits cornfields.
As an analogy (neither weather or climate; just an analogy): the tusunami which struck Japan last year would not have caused nearly as much $ of damage had it occurred out in the middle of the ocean somewhere. However, it would have been just as severe an event.
Some years, you will see fewer weather events, with more $ damage. Other years you will see more weather events with less $ damage. Much like weather vs. climate, it just isn't valid to try to infer cause and effect over anything but a very long period of time.
Pardon me. That wasn't the link I intended to post. This is.
The subject under discussion was wood producers who cut down trees. Try to stay on-topic, would you?
"You're a man who likes to pretend to be a woman in the internet. In a similar way to how you're a right wing man who likes to pretend he's not."
YOU are a person who (A) likes to pretend he* knows things he actually does not,** and (B) prefers to insult people rather than argue real issues or offer scientific facts.
(* I presume "he", because the name is "Basil". Unlike you, I will presume your gender is what you present it to be, until demonstrated to be otherwise.)
(** Actually, I do not know this for a fact. Maybe you're not pretending, and really do think you know those things. I am not certain, either way. Unlike you, I don't presume to know more than I can support with facts.)