[Al_U_Card]

 blackshoe, on 2012-March-23, 15:04, said:

I wonder how many folks have quit flying because of TSA?

Kind of a "Global Warning"

[luke warm]

 Cthulhu D, on 2012-March-22, 18:53, said:

Al_U_Card: Was the US Government behind 9/11?

be careful al... if you answer yes, man-made global warming is true... or something like that

[Winstonm]

 blackshoe, on 2012-March-23, 15:04, said:

I wonder how many folks have quit flying because of TSA?

I have a high degree of confidence that no one could fly in the first place.

[dwar0123]

Often, during a cold wave when a record low is set, there are claims about how this disproves global warming. Other then the obvious fallacy of taking a single data point and trying to use it to prove a larger point, this got me to thinking. What you really need is the ratio of record highs to record lows over the year. This data would actually average out almost every complaint I have heard against other sets of data used to bolster global warming. The data set is also vast, long and impartially collected. And as it turns out, a few minutes in google and I found someone who not only asked the question but found the answer.

https://www2.ucar.ed...-lows-across-us

A single year isn't proof of much, but here is the most recent year's data.
http://thinkprogress...1-heat-records/

[mike777]

And as it turns out, a few minutes in google and I found someone who not only asked the question but found the ansew





so so so...what is the question


what is the ans\w\er

[dwar0123]

 mike777, on 2012-March-27, 00:59, said:

And as it turns out, a few minutes in google and I found someone who not only asked the question but found the ansew

so so so...what is the question

what is the ans\w\er

Two things.

1. Why do you appear to be correcting my spelling? I didn't typo answer, not even prior to an edit. Correcting spelling in other peoples post is already dickish, but introducing spelling mistakes while quoting someone and then making a point of correcting it, that is bizarre.

2. I guess I could have been more clear. I thought it was an interesting set of data and I wanted to share it and perhaps get a response from those that try to refute data that supports climate change.

[mike777]

 dwar0123, on 2012-March-27, 01:12, said:

Two things.

1. Why do you appear to be correcting my spelling? I didn't typo answer, not even prior to an edit. Correcting spelling in other peoples post is already dickish, but introducing spelling mistakes while quoting someone and then making a point of correcting it, that is bizarre.

2. I guess I could have been more clear. I thought it was an interesting set of data and I wanted to share it and perhaps get a response from those that try to refute data that supports climate change.

no


your main point ...no....

-----


your second point ...no

very unclear

[dwar0123]

 mike777, on 2012-March-27, 01:46, said:

no


your main point ...no....

-----


your second point ...no

very unclear

I'm still confused about what was the point of incorrecting the word answer was. Going with a drunken inability to read or quote. Not sure why you bother responding with such empty posts, hopefully it doesn't match what is in your head. Ordinarily I'd suspect I'm being trolled, but whats the fun of being trolled if you suspect it. Regardless, sorry you are so confused, wasn't even worried that I could. Environmental topics are not my bread and butter but I do enjoy discussing them; hopefully someone, obviously not you, does also. Debates are a fun way to learn and expand but this is neither fun nor illuminating, cause ya, this isn't a debate.

[PassedOut]

 dwar0123, on 2012-March-27, 00:03, said:

Often, during a cold wave when a record low is set, there are claims about how this disproves global warming. Other then the obvious fallacy of taking a single data point and trying to use it to prove a larger point, this got me to thinking. What you really need is the ratio of record highs to record lows over the year. This data would actually average out almost every complaint I have heard against other sets of data used to bolster global warming. The data set is also vast, long and impartially collected. And as it turns out, a few minutes in google and I found someone who not only asked the question but found the answer.

https://www2.ucar.ed...-lows-across-us

A single year isn't proof of much, but here is the most recent year's data.
http://thinkprogress...1-heat-records/

I did find your links interesting, and had not seen either article before.

As I understand it, the global warming deniers (at least those who actually take clear positions) no longer dispute the evidence that the earth has warmed over the past few decades, but claim that

(a) the warming has stopped, and/or
(b) the warming has little or nothing to do with the billions of tons of CO2 that mankind spews into the atmosphere each year.

But there is no doubt that CO2 traps heat, so the deniers have to come up with some means for that extra heat to be eliminated. They've suggested that increased cloud cover would compensate for the heat-trapping effects of the CO2, but that idea has been studied carefully and shown to be wrong.

[Al_U_Card]

 PassedOut, on 2012-March-27, 06:47, said:

As I understand it, the global warming deniers (at least those who actually take clear positions) no longer dispute the evidence that the earth has warmed over the past few decades, but claim that

(a) the warming has stopped, and/or
(b) the warming has little or nothing to do with the billions of tons of CO2 that mankind spews into the atmosphere each year.

But there is no doubt that CO2 traps heat, so the deniers have to come up with some means for that extra heat to be eliminated. They've suggested that increased cloud cover would compensate for the heat-trapping effects of the CO2, but that idea has been studied carefully and shown to be wrong.

Do you mean catastrophic global warming....err climate change...errr climate disruption and that is not denying global warming, it is accepting global climate variation as a fact.
Joe Romm`s polemics notwithstanding, the data shows that [CO2] is NOT a controller of global temps, no matter what else it may be.
Look at the real-life data (before the Hansen gang manage to "adjust" the past colder and the present warmer to bolster their case...) and it becomes obvious.

[Cthulhu D]

 luke warm, on 2012-March-23, 03:48, said:

the 9/11 thread is down the hall and to the left

It's a valid question, it's attempting to diagnose the perspective that Al_U_Card is coming from. It appears he has historically stated that the US government is behind 9/11, I am merely attempting to ascertain if he does still consider this the case.

I would have similar questions if he had previously advocated other politically charged opinions such as denial of the Armenian genocide, or stated that Obama is a Kenyan.

[luke warm]

 Cthulhu D, on 2012-March-27, 20:46, said:

It's a valid question, it's attempting to diagnose the perspective that Al_U_Card is coming from. It appears he has historically stated that the US government is behind 9/11, I am merely attempting to ascertain if he does still consider this the case.

I would have similar questions if he had previously advocated other politically charged opinions such as denial of the Armenian genocide, or stated that Obama is a Kenyan.

would any of those things have any bearing on the truth or falsity of AGW?

[hrothgar]

 luke warm, on 2012-March-28, 03:57, said:

would any of those things have any bearing on the truth or falsity of AGW?

Of course not. No one is claiming that they do.

However, these sorts of nonsensical claims have direct bearing on whether we can/should trust Al's judgement regarding whether or not global climate change is true, and by extension, trust any the sources that he uses to guide his decision making.

Al has a well established history of falling for crank conspiracy theories and trying to educate us that 9-11 was a US government plot.

He's back once again explaining how the "warm-ists" are falsifying evidence of global climate change and that he and the tobacco lobby are in possession of esoteric knowledge.

[blackshoe]

 Winstonm, on 2012-March-25, 09:24, said:

I have a high degree of confidence that no one could fly in the first place.

Harry Potter can fly. I saw him. So can Superman.

[luke warm]

 blackshoe, on 2012-March-28, 09:36, said:

Harry Potter can fly. I saw him. So can Superman.

and hancock and green lantern... sometimes i think winston just has no clue... either that or he's just a hater

[Winstonm]

 blackshoe, on 2012-March-28, 09:36, said:

Harry Potter can fly. I saw him. So can Superman.

I have to admit that is a damn fine argument.

[Cthulhu D]

 luke warm, on 2012-March-28, 03:57, said:

would any of those things have any bearing on the truth or falsity of AGW?

What's the point of discussing anything with someone who denies the Armenian genocide? When someone's world views are so deeply entrenched that they are are willing to reject historical facts because the alternative is to reconsider their world view, they are specifically rejecting logic and reason because they are unable to grapple with whatever the consequences are for their understanding of the world of those facts being true.

Thus if someone is claiming that the Armenian Genocide didn't happen, or that the earth is flat, there is literally no point discussing anything at all with them on a factual basis - they are willing to reject whatever facts are required if that is what it is required to cleave their current world view.

It is not possible to have a rational discussion with such a person, as they have rejected rationality in favour of delusion.

[luke warm]

 Cthulhu D, on 2012-March-28, 22:17, said:

What's the point of discussing anything with someone who denies the Armenian genocide? When someone's world views are so deeply entrenched that they are are willing to reject historical facts because the alternative is to reconsider their world view, they are specifically rejecting logic and reason because they are unable to grapple with whatever the consequences are for their understanding of the world of those facts being true.

Thus if someone is claiming that the Armenian Genocide didn't happen, or that the earth is flat, there is literally no point discussing anything at all with them on a factual basis - they are willing to reject whatever facts are required if that is what it is required to cleave their current world view.

It is not possible to have a rational discussion with such a person, as they have rejected rationality in favour of delusion.

i'll take that as a "no"

[Al_U_Card]

"The Who" dat...

[dwar0123]

 luke warm, on 2012-March-29, 03:54, said:

i'll take that as a "no"

They clearly have nothing to do with each other, only an irrational person would even think to ask the question. Further evidence at the actual point they were trying to make, which was a warning to others to not waste their time trying to have a rational debate with an irrational poster. A warning which I am obviously choosing to ignore at my own peril.

For instance, as in this example, you ignored Cthulhu entire point and tried instead to make it about something that was so self evidently true that it is hard for many people to even understand how you can seriously be asking it.

You can't prove AGW by pointing out flaws in one detractor, that's the absurd straw man argument you were trying to pretend Cthulhu was making. Don't pat yourself to hard on the back for having successfully disproved it, everyone else came into this discussion already knowing it was false.