Global warming isn't doing too well these days

There are two entirely different topics that one might address. (1) The scientific, economic and political issues surrounding climate change and (2) The relative wonderfulness of the person with whom one is communicating.

I find the latter to be uninteresting.

I have read all of the same posts by Citizen Runner over the years and I can state unequivocally that they have NOT "conveyed the clear and unequivocal sense that the science is "settled," and certain, not (even only slightly) uncertain." Perhaps your interpretation of the same reveals more about you than it does about Citizen Runner.

P wrote:I find the latter to be uninteresting.

the shill wrote:

P wrote:I find the latter to be uninteresting.

We all must find a basis to rationalize our personal decisions, I suppose. You own a car too, right? I can see why you might think that's irrelevant.

Would you care to deny that debating (1) the issues involved vs (2) the wonderfulness of the person stating certain propositions are two different things?

Or are you simply frustrated by the fact that Citizen Runner understands the issues better than you do, can explain them more lucidly and dispassionately than you can and leaves the virtue signalling field for you to own.

Try to get back on track. Your comments are much more interesting when your frustration is better hidden.

You've distilled my comments as:

P wrote:...the wonderfulness of the person stating certain propositions ....

and CR dismisses my comment by invoking "virtue signalling" (which these days is of couse the highest of insults in polite company). You ay find this line of discussion a little uncomfortable, but the reality is that to accomplish anything with respect to reducing harm to the environment, we each have to DO SOMETHING about it, not just wring our hands and bleat about it on the internet.

I'm not sure why this point doesn't resonate with you. Well, maybe I have an idea, but I'm not sure...

the shill wrote:

You've distilled my comments as:

P wrote:...the wonderfulness of the person stating certain propositions ....

and CR dismisses my comment by invoking "virtue signalling" (which these days is of couse the highest of insults in polite company). You ay find this line of discussion a little uncomfortable, but the reality is that to accomplish anything with respect to reducing harm to the environment, we each have to DO SOMETHING about it, not just wring our hands and bleat about it on the internet.

I'm not sure why this point doesn't resonate with you. Well, maybe I have an idea, but I'm not sure...

Not sure why you are having such a difficult time with what would seem to be a simple concept. There is a difference between discussing the issues involved with AGW and discussing the wonderfulness of the person who is involved in the discussion. Seems so simple.

For the record, I drive a tank that gets 6 gallons per mile. I am a serial killer who devours my victims. I like to torture puppies in my free time. And I often enjoy a cup of herbal tea.

P wrote:Not sure why you are having such a difficult time with what would seem to be a simple concept. There is a difference between discussing the issues involved with AGW and discussing the wonderfulness of the person who is involved in the discussion.

You are not the thread's curator, I feel like anything in the general area of climate change is fair game. This includes discussion of doing something about it.

It does feel like I've touched a nerve...

Not sure why anyone would be concerned about the impact of burning fossil fuels, as we're going to run out of oil any day now.

the shill wrote:

P wrote:Not sure why you are having such a difficult time with what would seem to be a simple concept. There is a difference between discussing the issues involved with AGW and discussing the wonderfulness of the person who is involved in the discussion.

You are not the thread's curator, I feel like anything in the general area of climate change is fair game. This includes discussion of doing something about it.

It does feel like I've touched a nerve...

See what I mean about your posts being more interesting when you don't show your frustration so clearly. This one of yours is entirely lacking in interest.

Now, as far as "It does feel like I've touched a nerve...", you are once again mistaken...

///

Try to go back to substance - much more interesting.

Just an observation wrote:

Another prediction turned out wrong:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/06/11/oh-so-thats-why-the-glaciers-will-be-gone-in-2020-sign-has-been-removed-at-a-n2547957?amp=true

all the predictions are bang on with global warming.

there is no more show, kids now don't know what snow is.

sea levels are way up, every city is like half its size, and they had to move all the ports, rebuild the all.

al gore's seaside mansion is now under water, and he'll have to invent an under water, waterproof internet.

all the polar bears are dead.

greenland is full of palm trees and the eskimos don't know what to do.

this is what happens with a big carbon footprint.

Nothing to worry about! The scientists are just out for their own gain. The oil companies are the ones to be trusted!

climatelol wrote:

ohmyohmy wrote:

Like most Americans you have no idea what is going on in the rest of the world......

https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/january-2019-was-australias-hottest-month-ever-recorded/news-story/fb87ee6a9840fc2d403776712a58905e

hottest since when? do you have the temp data from January 800BC?

Exactly! They don't have data from the continental US before 1500, and the time span of data from Australia is not much different. They are crazy to think only what has happened in the past century is relevant.

Racehorse wrote:

climatelol wrote:

hottest since when? do you have the temp data from January 800BC?

Exactly! They don't have data from the continental US before 1500, and the time span of data from Australia is not much different. They are crazy to think only what has happened in the past century is relevant.

Weird that "climatelol" asked "hottest since when?" The article cited makes it pretty clear that it was the hottest ever recorded. So, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that it was the hottest since such recordings began.

(article clearly states that "those records go back to 1910."

---

Oh wait, were you going with one of those "The Earth is really, really old therefore humans cannot be significantly altering the climate" arguments?

If you'd watch Mr. Heller's video's you learn how important the US temperature record is for understanding global temp norms. BLUF - there is very little historical data for South American and Africa going back more than about 50 years. Even Europe's history record isn't all the great. Eastern Europe and Asia are also bad.

So yes, reviewing the US historical record is meaningful for making general trends for global temperature trends.

These forums are terrible for debate, but if you really want to learn, check out more of Tony Heller's videos (if you dare).

Wow, you've just debunked decades of scientific research with that grammar correction.

Ignoring the overwhelming data against his position by pointing out one irrelevant factoid. Classic denier.

Moran.

P wrote:Try to go back to substance - much more interesting.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I come here to amuse and entertain myself. Whether what I blather on about interests you is of no interest to me.

I’ve written before that to me the most interesting aspects of the AGW topic revolve around social questions, not technical ones. I find the nature of the discussion fascinating and have learned many things about people along the way.

I think most people lack interest in the technical details. People want a story, not facts. Society thrives on stories well told by charismatic people, not scientific detail circulated by technocrats.

I also think society is good at sniffing out BS in new stories. I think people can be convinced to do more for the environment if presented with simple, clean, honest and understandable reasons. I don’t think society, as a whole, will be quick to cut back on air emissions based on the AGW story. It’s to charged and polarized and complex, and just doesn’t make for a good story, regardless of its likely objective truth.

We each have our own subjective truth, tied to the stories we believe. No objective truth will displace that unless it comes embedded in a better story.

The shill wrote:

People want a story, not facts.

This morning I bicycle commuted to work, a one way distance of about 12 miles. It was a pleasant ride, a bit on the cool side with some morning fog along the river valley. Later that morning I was declared a climate hypocrite by someone on the internet because I own a car. Also I learned that when I've posted about probabilistic attribution it is interpreted as absolute certainty. Or not. I can't really make sense of that bit. I'll think about it on the ride home.

True story.

You get to have your own story, your own subjective truth. If owning a car isn’t hypocritical to you, it isn’t hypocritical, regardless of what some shill on the internet thinks.

If I have misunderstood and misstated your position on the science of AGW, I apologize sincerely, that’s on me, my failure of reading comprehension. I feel like an idiot, but nobody could be more surprised than me to discover after five years of arguing that we believe essentially the same thing, that climate change is probably influenced by human activity but with some degree of doubt. The differences in our estimation of that degree of doubt (my 20% versus your and IPCC’s 5%) is a distinction without a difference.

Question for anyone else holding the same view... what do we do about that uncertainty? How do we make a plan that’s robust against change in belief, if over time we learn that anthropogenic influence is smaller than believed, and any efforts to reverse climate change by, for example, reducing green house gases, have no effect? What is the path forward that addresses the (admittedly small) probability that climate is driven mainly or entirely by natural phenomena?

Maybe I’ll leave it there for now.

Conundrum wrote:

Except that one time wrote:

Except that one time when Earth was a ball of molten rock. It's not nearly as hot now. Rather pleasant, comparatively, if you ask me.

On record

Read your reply again and then you will understand why it is hard to take you guys seriously.

Weird Al wrote:

Racehorse wrote:

Exactly! They don't have data from the continental US before 1500, and the time span of data from Australia is not much different. They are crazy to think only what has happened in the past century is relevant.

Weird that "climatelol" asked "hottest since when?" The article cited makes it pretty clear that it was the hottest ever recorded. So, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that it was the hottest since such recordings began.

(article clearly states that "those records go back to 1910."

---

Oh wait, were you going with one of those "The Earth is really, really old therefore humans cannot be significantly altering the climate" arguments?

Nah, you are asserting that humans are to blame, with your comment. We don't have enough historical data to make an argument about global warming/cooling/change, whatever your name for it is this month.

100 yrs of temp data is statistically insignificant.