Most are [GCMs] mutually contradictory, so you can't claim they are all accurate, after all.
Really?
Describe these contradictions in detail, citing sources from peer reviewed material to that effect, and name the models which are contradictory. Per my earlier, also enumerate how these alleged contradictions impact the effectiveness of other models in prediction, as well as the whole field of cliamte science.
You can't even describe what I've said in this conversation.
It's what you've refused to say, or couldn't, that is actually significant.
You seem to have an idea that everyone who has an issue with global warming is having an emotional response and not a logical one. So let's see if you are able to participate in a logical discussion of the issue. Feel free to answer on behalf of what you believe the "consensus view" is.
You aren't the arbiter of what is logical and what is not. See how this works?
Which specific climate change/global warming model do you believe has successfully predicted in the future a couple of decades of global temperature changes, i.e. what's it's track record for prediction? Also, what's the margin of error of your preferred model and how are measurement errors accounted for in that?
ALL of the GCM models out-perform the models and theories produced by denialists when it comes to prediction. Just a few days ago I was having a discussion with a guy who claimed that Arrhenius was wrong and in fact, the observed warming was due to the milankovitch cycle. That's the level of drooling moron that the science is teamed against. Then, you claimed that denialism is based on logic but have been unable to even describe a single logic based argument that justifies denialism. You've been unable to identify a single model which performed worse than the predictions produced by the denialists. You've been unable to identify a single GCM which produced a prediction range where the actual observation fell above or below the predicted range, let alone articulate what the consequences of that might be.
Then, based on that model, what are the estimated overall economic costs of your proposed solutions vs. the costs of not implementing those solutions? Then how do those costs differ compared to implementing them now, vs. doing something about the "problem" when the world is much richer and more technologically advanced, i.e. in the future?
You've been unable to describe any economic model where doing nothing results in a better outcome than mitigating against climate change - nor have you successfully argued that economics is even science.
If you'll provide your answers to the above, then you've have at least thought rationally about the issue and we're ready to have a conversation and/or a logical debate about it. If you have no idea of the answers to the above questions, then you have no logical foundation for your listed beliefs and you're just a blind follower in regards to the religion of global warming.
You've pretty much convinced me that objections to climate science are completely irrational and based on hurt feelings, not observation. Well done you!
Fascinating. Unfortunately, the reality is, I agree with the consensus view on climate and the causes of the recent warming trend. You can protest as much as you like about how this hurts your feelings, but you must either prove that my view somehow differs from the consensus view, or that there is no consensus. Because your hurt feelings of no interest to me. If there really was no consensus, you would prove it, but I note that you haven't done that.
Meanwhile, you seemed to have accidentally failed to address any of the actual on topic points:
If climate science is based on objectivity, and the objective practice of observation and conclusion, then it is not based on hurt feelings. I've asked you repeatedly to articulate the flaw in the string in the objective logic of climate science that led to the conclusion that the recent warming trend (as predicted by Arrhenius) is due to increased concentrations of CO2 and other 'greenhouse' gases in the atmosphere. You can't (or won't) describe one.
I've also asked you for an alternative explanation for the last 150 years of observations, that meets the criteria that I laid out in my first post. You've refused to provide one.
This would suggest strongly that (a) climate science is not based on hurt feelings, since the people who say that it is (you, in this case) cannot describe an objective basis or a foundation of objective observation that shows that this is true (b) that, per my original remark, objections to climate science are based on hurt feelings, since those who make such claims have no objective basis to lay their claims upon - their claims are not based on any identified logical or observational flaw that led to the conclusion that the recent warming trend (as predicted by Arrhenius) is due to increased concentrations of CO2 and other 'greenhouse' gases in the atmosphere.
Here's your cite: [slashdot.org]
It is not "my" position at all - it's called science
That cite says the complete opposite of what you need it to. It says: FYI - my position on climate change (as per my position on the rest of thermodynamics, motion, quantum physics, light, gravity and every other area of knowledge based on empirical observation) IS the consensus position. I'm not diverting from the consensus view at all.
The paragraph you misquoted reads: It is not "my" position at all - it's called science. If my position was different from what science told us, you could call it "my" position, otherwise, just call it science.
Maybe learn some reading comprehension.
My first post in the topic was a response to that statement of yours:
You seem to have an idea that everyone who has an issue with global warming is having an emotional response and not a logical one. So let's see if you are able to participate in a logical discussion of the issue.
To which I said: You aren't the arbiter of what is logical and what is not. See how this works?
You didn't provide any articulation of a particular qualification that allowed you to determine whether the last 150 years of climate science have been based on logic, so this part of our conversation was closed from that point on. Did you not realise?
I then included several specific questions asking you what [ the conclusions of science ] on global warming are so we could logically discuss them.
It's your responsibility to understand what the science says. This isn't school.
Since then, we've merely gone round and round your refusal to even state a position for discussion, instead making vague references to other people's general thoughts and ideas without even any concrete references.
The refusal was, and is, yours.
If climate science is based on objectivity, and the objective practice of observation and conclusion, then it is not based on hurt feelings. I've asked you repeatedly to articulate the flaw in the string in the objective logic of climate science that led to the conclusion that the recent warming trend (as predicted by Arrhenius) is due to increased concentrations of CO2 and other 'greenhouse' gases in the atmosphere. You can't (or won't) describe one.
I've also asked you for an alternative explanation for the last 150 years of observations, that meets the criteria that I laid out in my first post. You've refused to provide one.
This would suggest strongly that (a) climate science is not based on hurt feelings, since the people who say that it is (you, in this case) cannot describe an objective basis or a foundation of objective observation that shows that this is true (b) that, per my original remark, objections to climate science are based on hurt feelings, since those who make such claims have no objective basis to lay their claims upon - their claims are not based on any identified logical or observational flaw that led to the conclusion that the recent warming trend (as predicted by Arrhenius) is due to increased concentrations of CO2 and other 'greenhouse' gases in the atmosphere.
I've never stated, nor attempted to prove climate science is based on hurt feelings.
From which we can conclude (per my original statement) that you actually think (as I do) that people who object to the science do so for subjective reasons (or more bluntly, hurt feelings).
Since you yourself stated that _you_ don't even have a scientific position, what is there a need to object to?
Provide a cite where I say this (noting that I have a cite from this very conversation where I say the complete opposite).
Perhaps if you took a position, we could discuss it. Until then, you're just trolling.
You're weird. When was my position even the topic of conversation? We've been discussing your attempt to prove that climate science is based on hurt feelings by proving that it has no basis in objective observation.
Is climate science based on objective observation?
My problem is stated in my original post. Your contention that everyone who has a problem with global warming is responding emotionally and not logically.
I'm keeping an open mind, but so far your behavior and response has only confirmed what I already thought.
You can't articulate an actual (objective) problem with the science. What then is the basis of your objection to it? It can only be subjective - based on emotion and/or hurt feelings.
1. Is the a problem with the consensus view on climate?
2. If so, provide observational evidence for that problem, and cite a reputable journal or publication
If you cannot, We can safely assume you don't know of any problems, or are ignorant, or are simply responding emotionally because no-one asked your opinion on how serious climate change was.
Your choice is simple. Choose to provide the citation to articulate the issue, or concede that you don't know of one.
Your argument is with the consensus position on climate change. Not with me. From the start you've been trying to reduce the consensus view of science down to a personal view as if 150 years of science can simply be put aside because of your hurt feelings. That won't happen.
If you have a problem with the science, describe what the problem is, and we'll see if it is a problem for the science, or merely a problem on your part. I'm not going to start at Fourier and proceed to Arrhenius, and regurgitate the science step by step, just because of your ignorance. It's your responsibility to understand the science that you claim to have a problem with. If you don't understand it, then the problem is your ignorance.
Articulate what the issue is, if you cannot do that, then I must assume that the real issue is not with facts or logic, but with your hurt feelings.
FYI - my position on climate change (as per my position on the rest of thermodynamics, motion, quantum physics, light, gravity and every other area of knowledge based on empirical observation) IS the consensus position. I'm not diverting from the consensus view at all. You made a mistake - but I accept your explanation of that mistake.
1. In your example, I don't say anything about CO2 not being a green house gas. I don't even say anything about global warming in general in that post. The line you cite is a comment on your specific belief system, not a comment about science. In the sentence "your religious belief in global warming", notice the word "your".
It is not "my" position at all - it's called science. If my position was different from what science told us, you could call it "my" position, otherwise, just call it science.
2. See your comment just replied to above for a remark you've made which has been demonstrated and proven to be false. This is way too easy.
Please link to and quote anywhere I've ever written CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, even outside this conversation.
In this post you described the concept as "a religion". Have you changed your mind, or are you merely deranged? Or are you going to deny saying it?
The problem is you're making statements which are demonstrably false, then failing to even attempt to back them up. It doesn't help to just make things up out of thin air.
Cite a remark that I've made that is demonstrably false, and provide evidence of its falseness.
All I did was ask you for a logical argument when you decided to say no one who disagrees with you is being logical about it, and in return you've been spewing emotional non-arguments and not responding to what was asked.
If you want us to accept your assertion that science is a religion, you can provide evidence. Did you think that people would rush to defend the scientific method because you tried (unsuccessfully) to throw shade on it? No-one gives a shit what you think or feel.
So it's your claims which are without evidence, especially since you can't even be bothered to even _clearly state_ your claims, which is what was originally requested by me in my first post in this thread.
You're a moron. You say my claims are without evidence, then say that I didn't make any. All the while, we've been talking about your assertion. You apparently lack the wherewithal to even grasp what this conversation is about.
Sounds like being shown to the world as having no basis for your religious belief in global warming "hurts your feelings."
Sounds like you are delusional.
Can you describe any evidence that backs your claim that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?
What do you think claims without evidence are called?
Feel free to come back when you're ready to actually discuss the issue
You need to learn some resilience. If you cannot stay in the game once the mocking starts, then you will never convince anyone with your stories about the time traveling Chinese refrigerating the moon.
ALL of the GCM models out-perform the models and theories produced by denialists when it comes to prediction. Just yesterday I was having a discussion with a guy who claimed that Arrhenius was wrong and in fact, the observed warming was due to the milankovitch cycle. That's the level of drooling moron that the science is teamed against.
So in other words, you believe in something you can't even define and are unable to make specific explanations of. So yeah, you've proven with your own words above you're a religious believer in global warming and unable to participate in a logical discussion of the issue.
There's a stream of words coming from your mouth that I assume mean something like a compelling argument to you, but to the rest of us just sound like the ramblings of a lunatic.
And you whine about how your assertions are not taken seriously. Who is to blame for the global warming conspiracy this week? Zombie Arrhenius? Time travelling chinese taikonaut industrialists?
You seem to have an idea that everyone who has an issue with global warming is having an emotional response and not a logical one. So let's see if you are able to participate in a logical discussion of the issue.
You aren't the arbiter of what is logical and what is not. See how this works?
Which specific climate change/global warming model do you believe has successfully predicted in the future a couple of decades of global temperature changes, i.e. what's it's track record for prediction? Also, what's the margin of error of your preferred model and how are measurement errors accounted for in that?
ALL of the GCM models out-perform the models and theories produced by denialists when it comes to prediction. Just yesterday I was having a discussion with a guy who claimed that Arrhenius was wrong and in fact, the observed warming was due to the milankovitch cycle. That's the level of drooling moron that the science is teamed against.
Then, based on that model, what are the estimated overall economic costs of your proposed solutions vs. the costs of not implementing those solutions? Then how do those costs differ compared to implementing them now, vs. doing something about the "problem" when the world is much richer and more technologically advanced, i.e. in the future?
You sound ignorant. Are you unsure of the economic impacts of adaptation versus mitigation? Maybe do your own research.
Why do you think that people have a problem with "global warming"?
The reason that people have a problem with global warming is that it hurts their feelings. Also, their tribe has declared that global warming isn't real so they must insist it isn't real to remain loyal, even though they have a sense of creeping dread that it is.
Of course, the basic science is perfectly repeatable - wait for a clear day (or night), go outside and look at the moon. If your alternative theory can't explain why the temperature on the moon's surface varies by over 200 degrees between 'night' and 'day' and the earth's does not, then your alternative theory is bunk.
Repeat the experiment as needed.
The forecasting models might not be repeatable, because we haven't/won't invent time travel, but that is just a constraint, not an implication that they are not scientific.
With respect to the post enlightenment part, what you are exhibiting is the same behaviour as the woman who wrote the article. Science contradicts your political narrative, so there is a problem with science - just like she thinks science being silent on the question on pipelines through native lands is a problem with science - it is not.
Of course, there is only a problem because your tribe can't think of a way to combat climate change in a way that is politically palatable for you (i.e. without some form of government control). That's because, for whatever reason, your tribe rejected the market as a mechanism for reasons that are more like socialism than anything else. Nobody should think political tribes are rational.
The first thing you need to be willing to embrace is the fact that we might be wrong about everything. It's not religion.
It is for you.
I've repeatedly asked slashdots resident denialists to comment on the failure of denialist theory to accurately explain any of the things that have happened since denialism sprang into existence (some 130 years after the theory of CO2 climate forcing). Again and again, all I get is diversion and avoidance - just like the Jehovah's Witnesses.
You chose this path so: maybe less of the whining.
No I actually try to bring facts, in this discussion your replies have veered towards the personal.
Excellent: let's begin with the facts then:
When you say : What do you call a theory that makes wrong predictions, you mean theories that haven proven wrong in fact such as: "The temperature isn't rising" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's sunspots" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's gravitational lensing" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's because we are coming out of an ice age" OR "OK the temperature is rising, but it's not global warming but I won't tell you how I know"?
Are those the kinds of theories you are referring to?
You didn't do a very good job of convincing me that your theory explaining the recent warming trend has more predictive power than the prevalent theory - nor indeed, the theories proffered by denialists in the past.
Which does raise the question: If accurate prediction is the measure to use, why would we believe the assertions of denialists, such as yourself?
Try again I am talking about theories that predict the temperature of the earth in advance and fail to make accurate predictions.
Ah - you mean theories like:
"The temperature isn't rising" or
"OK the temperature is rising, but it's sunspots" or
"OK the temperature is rising, but it's gravitational lensing" or
"OK the temperature is rising, but it's because we are coming out of an ice age" OR
"OK the temperature is rising, but it's not global warming but I won't tell you how I know"
Theories like these - which fail because their predictions are inaccurate?
What do you call them ?
I'd call the above theories failures that failed and have been debunked - but still get propagated by liars, and the people that propagate them I call liars.
When you say : What do you call a theory that makes wrong predictions you mean theories like: "The temperature isn't rising" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's sunspots" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's gravitational lensing" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's because we are coming out of an ice age" OR "OK the temperature is rising, but it's not global warming but I won't tell you how I know"?
Is that the kind of theories you mean, or isn't it?
I am sorry, he is citing predictions that didn't happen. What do you call a theory that makes wrong predictions ?
You mean like "The temperature isn't rising" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's sunspots" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's gravitational lensing" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's because we are coming out of an ice age" OR "OK the temperature is rising, but it's not global warming but I won't tell you how I know"?
That kind of theory is what you mean?
What do you call someone who pushes theories that don't make accurate predictions ?
Slashdot Mirror
Most are [GCMs] mutually contradictory, so you can't claim they are all accurate, after all.
Really?
Describe these contradictions in detail, citing sources from peer reviewed material to that effect, and name the models which are contradictory. Per my earlier, also enumerate how these alleged contradictions impact the effectiveness of other models in prediction, as well as the whole field of cliamte science.
You can't even describe what I've said in this conversation.
It's what you've refused to say, or couldn't, that is actually significant.
You seem to have an idea that everyone who has an issue with global warming is having an emotional response and not a logical one. So let's see if you are able to participate in a logical discussion of the issue. Feel free to answer on behalf of what you believe the "consensus view" is.
You aren't the arbiter of what is logical and what is not. See how this works?
Which specific climate change/global warming model do you believe has successfully predicted in the future a couple of decades of global temperature changes, i.e. what's it's track record for prediction? Also, what's the margin of error of your preferred model and how are measurement errors accounted for in that?
ALL of the GCM models out-perform the models and theories produced by denialists when it comes to prediction. Just a few days ago I was having a discussion with a guy who claimed that Arrhenius was wrong and in fact, the observed warming was due to the milankovitch cycle. That's the level of drooling moron that the science is teamed against. Then, you claimed that denialism is based on logic but have been unable to even describe a single logic based argument that justifies denialism. You've been unable to identify a single model which performed worse than the predictions produced by the denialists. You've been unable to identify a single GCM which produced a prediction range where the actual observation fell above or below the predicted range, let alone articulate what the consequences of that might be.
Then, based on that model, what are the estimated overall economic costs of your proposed solutions vs. the costs of not implementing those solutions? Then how do those costs differ compared to implementing them now, vs. doing something about the "problem" when the world is much richer and more technologically advanced, i.e. in the future?
You've been unable to describe any economic model where doing nothing results in a better outcome than mitigating against climate change - nor have you successfully argued that economics is even science.
If you'll provide your answers to the above, then you've have at least thought rationally about the issue and we're ready to have a conversation and/or a logical debate about it. If you have no idea of the answers to the above questions, then you have no logical foundation for your listed beliefs and you're just a blind follower in regards to the religion of global warming.
You've pretty much convinced me that objections to climate science are completely irrational and based on hurt feelings, not observation. Well done you!
Fascinating. Unfortunately, the reality is, I agree with the consensus view on climate and the causes of the recent warming trend. You can protest as much as you like about how this hurts your feelings, but you must either prove that my view somehow differs from the consensus view, or that there is no consensus. Because your hurt feelings of no interest to me. If there really was no consensus, you would prove it, but I note that you haven't done that.
Meanwhile, you seemed to have accidentally failed to address any of the actual on topic points:
If climate science is based on objectivity, and the objective practice of observation and conclusion, then it is not based on hurt feelings. I've asked you repeatedly to articulate the flaw in the string in the objective logic of climate science that led to the conclusion that the recent warming trend (as predicted by Arrhenius) is due to increased concentrations of CO2 and other 'greenhouse' gases in the atmosphere. You can't (or won't) describe one.
I've also asked you for an alternative explanation for the last 150 years of observations, that meets the criteria that I laid out in my first post. You've refused to provide one.
This would suggest strongly that (a) climate science is not based on hurt feelings, since the people who say that it is (you, in this case) cannot describe an objective basis or a foundation of objective observation that shows that this is true (b) that, per my original remark, objections to climate science are based on hurt feelings, since those who make such claims have no objective basis to lay their claims upon - their claims are not based on any identified logical or observational flaw that led to the conclusion that the recent warming trend (as predicted by Arrhenius) is due to increased concentrations of CO2 and other 'greenhouse' gases in the atmosphere.
Here's your cite: [slashdot.org] It is not "my" position at all - it's called science
That cite says the complete opposite of what you need it to. It says: FYI - my position on climate change (as per my position on the rest of thermodynamics, motion, quantum physics, light, gravity and every other area of knowledge based on empirical observation) IS the consensus position. I'm not diverting from the consensus view at all.
The paragraph you misquoted reads: It is not "my" position at all - it's called science. If my position was different from what science told us, you could call it "my" position, otherwise, just call it science.
Maybe learn some reading comprehension.
My first post in the topic was a response to that statement of yours:
You seem to have an idea that everyone who has an issue with global warming is having an emotional response and not a logical one. So let's see if you are able to participate in a logical discussion of the issue.
To which I said: You aren't the arbiter of what is logical and what is not. See how this works? You didn't provide any articulation of a particular qualification that allowed you to determine whether the last 150 years of climate science have been based on logic, so this part of our conversation was closed from that point on. Did you not realise?
I then included several specific questions asking you what [ the conclusions of science ] on global warming are so we could logically discuss them.
It's your responsibility to understand what the science says. This isn't school.
Since then, we've merely gone round and round your refusal to even state a position for discussion, instead making vague references to other people's general thoughts and ideas without even any concrete references.
The refusal was, and is, yours.
If climate science is based on objectivity, and the objective practice of observation and conclusion, then it is not based on hurt feelings. I've asked you repeatedly to articulate the flaw in the string in the objective logic of climate science that led to the conclusion that the recent warming trend (as predicted by Arrhenius) is due to increased concentrations of CO2 and other 'greenhouse' gases in the atmosphere. You can't (or won't) describe one.
I've also asked you for an alternative explanation for the last 150 years of observations, that meets the criteria that I laid out in my first post. You've refused to provide one.
This would suggest strongly that (a) climate science is not based on hurt feelings, since the people who say that it is (you, in this case) cannot describe an objective basis or a foundation of objective observation that shows that this is true (b) that, per my original remark, objections to climate science are based on hurt feelings, since those who make such claims have no objective basis to lay their claims upon - their claims are not based on any identified logical or observational flaw that led to the conclusion that the recent warming trend (as predicted by Arrhenius) is due to increased concentrations of CO2 and other 'greenhouse' gases in the atmosphere.
I've never stated, nor attempted to prove climate science is based on hurt feelings.
From which we can conclude (per my original statement) that you actually think (as I do) that people who object to the science do so for subjective reasons (or more bluntly, hurt feelings).
Since you yourself stated that _you_ don't even have a scientific position, what is there a need to object to?
Provide a cite where I say this (noting that I have a cite from this very conversation where I say the complete opposite).
Perhaps if you took a position, we could discuss it. Until then, you're just trolling.
You're weird. When was my position even the topic of conversation? We've been discussing your attempt to prove that climate science is based on hurt feelings by proving that it has no basis in objective observation.
Is climate science based on objective observation?
My problem is stated in my original post. Your contention that everyone who has a problem with global warming is responding emotionally and not logically.
I'm keeping an open mind, but so far your behavior and response has only confirmed what I already thought.
You can't articulate an actual (objective) problem with the science. What then is the basis of your objection to it? It can only be subjective - based on emotion and/or hurt feelings.
1. Is the a problem with the consensus view on climate?
2. If so, provide observational evidence for that problem, and cite a reputable journal or publication
If you cannot, We can safely assume you don't know of any problems, or are ignorant, or are simply responding emotionally because no-one asked your opinion on how serious climate change was.
Your choice is simple. Choose to provide the citation to articulate the issue, or concede that you don't know of one.
Your argument is with the consensus position on climate change. Not with me. From the start you've been trying to reduce the consensus view of science down to a personal view as if 150 years of science can simply be put aside because of your hurt feelings. That won't happen.
If you have a problem with the science, describe what the problem is, and we'll see if it is a problem for the science, or merely a problem on your part. I'm not going to start at Fourier and proceed to Arrhenius, and regurgitate the science step by step, just because of your ignorance. It's your responsibility to understand the science that you claim to have a problem with. If you don't understand it, then the problem is your ignorance.
Articulate what the issue is, if you cannot do that, then I must assume that the real issue is not with facts or logic, but with your hurt feelings.
1. In your example, I don't say anything about CO2 not being a green house gas. I don't even say anything about global warming in general in that post. The line you cite is a comment on your specific belief system, not a comment about science. In the sentence "your religious belief in global warming", notice the word "your".
It is not "my" position at all - it's called science. If my position was different from what science told us, you could call it "my" position, otherwise, just call it science.
2. See your comment just replied to above for a remark you've made which has been demonstrated and proven to be false. This is way too easy.
No, you fail. Go again.
3. I never asserted science is a religion.
See above.
Please link to and quote anywhere I've ever written CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, even outside this conversation.
In this post you described the concept as "a religion". Have you changed your mind, or are you merely deranged? Or are you going to deny saying it?
The problem is you're making statements which are demonstrably false, then failing to even attempt to back them up. It doesn't help to just make things up out of thin air.
Cite a remark that I've made that is demonstrably false, and provide evidence of its falseness.
All I did was ask you for a logical argument when you decided to say no one who disagrees with you is being logical about it, and in return you've been spewing emotional non-arguments and not responding to what was asked.
If you want us to accept your assertion that science is a religion, you can provide evidence. Did you think that people would rush to defend the scientific method because you tried (unsuccessfully) to throw shade on it? No-one gives a shit what you think or feel.
So it's your claims which are without evidence, especially since you can't even be bothered to even _clearly state_ your claims, which is what was originally requested by me in my first post in this thread.
You're a moron. You say my claims are without evidence, then say that I didn't make any. All the while, we've been talking about your assertion. You apparently lack the wherewithal to even grasp what this conversation is about.
Sounds like being shown to the world as having no basis for your religious belief in global warming "hurts your feelings."
Sounds like you are delusional.
Can you describe any evidence that backs your claim that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?
What do you think claims without evidence are called?
Feel free to come back when you're ready to actually discuss the issue
You need to learn some resilience. If you cannot stay in the game once the mocking starts, then you will never convince anyone with your stories about the time traveling Chinese refrigerating the moon.
ALL of the GCM models out-perform the models and theories produced by denialists when it comes to prediction. Just yesterday I was having a discussion with a guy who claimed that Arrhenius was wrong and in fact, the observed warming was due to the milankovitch cycle. That's the level of drooling moron that the science is teamed against.
So in other words, you believe in something you can't even define and are unable to make specific explanations of. So yeah, you've proven with your own words above you're a religious believer in global warming and unable to participate in a logical discussion of the issue.
There's a stream of words coming from your mouth that I assume mean something like a compelling argument to you, but to the rest of us just sound like the ramblings of a lunatic.
And you whine about how your assertions are not taken seriously. Who is to blame for the global warming conspiracy this week? Zombie Arrhenius? Time travelling chinese taikonaut industrialists?
You seem to have an idea that everyone who has an issue with global warming is having an emotional response and not a logical one. So let's see if you are able to participate in a logical discussion of the issue.
You aren't the arbiter of what is logical and what is not. See how this works?
Which specific climate change/global warming model do you believe has successfully predicted in the future a couple of decades of global temperature changes, i.e. what's it's track record for prediction? Also, what's the margin of error of your preferred model and how are measurement errors accounted for in that?
ALL of the GCM models out-perform the models and theories produced by denialists when it comes to prediction. Just yesterday I was having a discussion with a guy who claimed that Arrhenius was wrong and in fact, the observed warming was due to the milankovitch cycle. That's the level of drooling moron that the science is teamed against.
Then, based on that model, what are the estimated overall economic costs of your proposed solutions vs. the costs of not implementing those solutions? Then how do those costs differ compared to implementing them now, vs. doing something about the "problem" when the world is much richer and more technologically advanced, i.e. in the future?
You sound ignorant. Are you unsure of the economic impacts of adaptation versus mitigation? Maybe do your own research.
Why do you think that people have a problem with "global warming"?
The reason that people have a problem with global warming is that it hurts their feelings. Also, their tribe has declared that global warming isn't real so they must insist it isn't real to remain loyal, even though they have a sense of creeping dread that it is.
Of course, the basic science is perfectly repeatable - wait for a clear day (or night), go outside and look at the moon. If your alternative theory can't explain why the temperature on the moon's surface varies by over 200 degrees between 'night' and 'day' and the earth's does not, then your alternative theory is bunk.
Repeat the experiment as needed.
The forecasting models might not be repeatable, because we haven't/won't invent time travel, but that is just a constraint, not an implication that they are not scientific. With respect to the post enlightenment part, what you are exhibiting is the same behaviour as the woman who wrote the article. Science contradicts your political narrative, so there is a problem with science - just like she thinks science being silent on the question on pipelines through native lands is a problem with science - it is not.
Of course, there is only a problem because your tribe can't think of a way to combat climate change in a way that is politically palatable for you (i.e. without some form of government control). That's because, for whatever reason, your tribe rejected the market as a mechanism for reasons that are more like socialism than anything else. Nobody should think political tribes are rational.
The first thing you need to be willing to embrace is the fact that we might be wrong about everything. It's not religion.
It is for you.
I've repeatedly asked slashdots resident denialists to comment on the failure of denialist theory to accurately explain any of the things that have happened since denialism sprang into existence (some 130 years after the theory of CO2 climate forcing). Again and again, all I get is diversion and avoidance - just like the Jehovah's Witnesses.
You guys ? Good to see that tribalism again.
You chose this path so: maybe less of the whining.
No I actually try to bring facts, in this discussion your replies have veered towards the personal.
Excellent: let's begin with the facts then:
When you say : What do you call a theory that makes wrong predictions, you mean theories that haven proven wrong in fact such as: "The temperature isn't rising" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's sunspots" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's gravitational lensing" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's because we are coming out of an ice age" OR "OK the temperature is rising, but it's not global warming but I won't tell you how I know"?
Are those the kinds of theories you are referring to?
Which does raise the question: If accurate prediction is the measure to use, why would we believe the assertions of denialists, such as yourself?
To which
You claimed that I didn't understand we are in an ice age: provide a citation.
Looks like you've inadvertently failed to provide an answer to the question - I'll ask it again:
The following assertions by denialists have all proven to be inaccurate:
"The temperature isn't rising"
"OK the temperature is rising, but it's sunspots"
"OK the temperature is rising, but it's gravitational lensing"
"OK the temperature is rising, but it's because we are coming out of an ice age"
"OK the temperature is rising, but it's not global warming but I won't tell you how I know"
If accurate prediction is the measure to use, why would we believe the assertions of denialists, such as yourself?
Oh hell why not give yourself a bigger target there and go for "The climate isn't changing"
If you guys can't get your stories straight, that's not my problem.
It's almost as good as this. We are in an ice age right now, this is an interglacial period of the current ice age.
Hint: When the poles are covered in ice it's an ice age.
Thanks for telling me what I already know. Want to also tell me the name of my cat?
I am sorry, aren't you the guy who didn't understand we were in an ice age ?
I'm going to ask you for a citation, if you think that is true.
If accurate prediction is the measure to use, why would we believe the assertions of denialists, such as yourself?
Well what accurate prediction do you assert I am denying ? So far all you have is name calling and it makes you look like a cultist. Maybe you are.
The following assertions by denialists have all proven to be inaccurate:
"The temperature isn't rising"
"OK the temperature is rising, but it's sunspots"
"OK the temperature is rising, but it's gravitational lensing"
"OK the temperature is rising, but it's because we are coming out of an ice age"
"OK the temperature is rising, but it's not global warming but I won't tell you how I know"
If accurate prediction is the measure to use, why would we believe the assertions of denialists, such as yourself?
I'll ask the question again: If accurate prediction is the measure to use, why would we believe the assertions of denialists, such as yourself?
Try again I am talking about theories that predict the temperature of the earth in advance and fail to make accurate predictions.
Ah - you mean theories like:
"The temperature isn't rising" or
"OK the temperature is rising, but it's sunspots" or
"OK the temperature is rising, but it's gravitational lensing" or
"OK the temperature is rising, but it's because we are coming out of an ice age" OR
"OK the temperature is rising, but it's not global warming but I won't tell you how I know"
Theories like these - which fail because their predictions are inaccurate?
What do you call them ?
I'd call the above theories failures that failed and have been debunked - but still get propagated by liars, and the people that propagate them I call liars.
What do you call them?
If accurate prediction is the measure to use, why would we believe the assertions of denialists, such as yourself?
You didn't address the question.
When you say : What do you call a theory that makes wrong predictions you mean theories like: "The temperature isn't rising" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's sunspots" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's gravitational lensing" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's because we are coming out of an ice age" OR "OK the temperature is rising, but it's not global warming but I won't tell you how I know"?
Is that the kind of theories you mean, or isn't it?
I am sorry, he is citing predictions that didn't happen. What do you call a theory that makes wrong predictions ?
You mean like "The temperature isn't rising" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's sunspots" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's gravitational lensing" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's because we are coming out of an ice age" OR "OK the temperature is rising, but it's not global warming but I won't tell you how I know"?
That kind of theory is what you mean?
What do you call someone who pushes theories that don't make accurate predictions ?
Well, what would you guys like to be called?
and that we're still coming out of an ice-age,
Inadvertently, you appear to have not cited a source for this assertion .
Can we do anything about it? Not really, except moving further inland or building dykes like the Dutch do.
Stop being alarmist.
Is that a reason to create panic just to make money with the fear of yet another apocalypse? I find that disgusting.
You are the one saying that there is nothing we can do except lie down and die. Are you disgusted with yourself?