The Official HEY NEW GUY, AGW IS A HOAX Thread
Peanut gallery mode has been enabled on this thread.

Started by Cannonpointer

This political chat room is for you to sound off about any political ideology and discuss current political topics. Everyone is welcome, yes, even conservatives, but keep in mind, the nature of the No Holds Barred political chat forum platform can be friendly to trolling. It is your responsibility to address this wisely. Forum Rules

Next
622 replies to this topic Sticky this thread

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,681 06 Aug 2017, 6:08 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 65,050
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,680.87



Log in or register to remove this ad..

I challenge the newbies most equipped to defend the AGW hoax to a debate of the issue.

This is a peanut gallery thread - I paid 500 rep points for the right to move spam in this thread. I will only allow the posts of combatants to stand - the rest will be disappeared.

I will debate the negative side of the issue, and I invite you newbies to pick two people to represent the affirmative. When the two are chosen, please present.

This is not unfair to me, as I will be conferring with my friend George Washington, so it will be two minds against two.

The two who sign on to this debate are welcome to both respond to the same post, as the urge moves you. It's your thang, do what you wanna do.

The issue is this: I say that AGW is a hoax, from soup to nuts. I say that the atmosphere is actually quite low on C02 at this time, and that condition is causing intermittent ice ages. I say that the scientists are not making the claims which you people believe them to be making - that in fact, the claims are being made by uneducated bureaucrats and talking heads. I say there is evidence of collusion and bullying which has never been explained away - and which must be answered for by those who choose to keep on believing.

I say that scissor lifts are not laboratory equipment - which is shorthand for the following: AGW is a hoax cooked up by politicians and capitalists to delude the ignorant into voting for their own demise, and sold to those unwashed by means not far short of carnival barking.

I say further that you all offer no political solution to the problem (pretending there is a problem) - that you are a complaint without a solution, and therefore unworthy of notice.

En garde, newbies. My name is Indigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
4
Only the weakest ideas must be protected from debate, and only religions declare people heretics.

Humanity's law of the jungle: survival of the tribe
Money is a theory until spent - then a value statement


When your map disputes the territory, it's your map that is wrong.
Where there's much sizzle, expect little steak
Honesty is intentional - lies are the lazy way out


Nostalgia is a crime against what happened
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me

Log in or register to remove this ad..

Kaykan's Photo
Posted by Kaykan
  128 06 Aug 2017, 6:25 pm

Kaykan   
  

Posts: 103
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 128.17

Cannonpointer » 06 Aug 2017 6:08 pm wrote:
I challenge the newbies most equipped to defend the AGW hoax to a debate of the issue.

This is a peanut gallery thread - I paid 500 rep points for the right to move spam in this thread. I will only allow the posts of combatants to stand - the rest will be disappeared.

I will debate the negative side of the issue, and I invite you newbies to pick two people to represent the affirmative. When the two are chosen, please present.

This is not unfair to me, as I will be conferring with my friend George Washington, so it will be two minds against two.

The two who sign on to this debate are welcome to both respond to the same post, as the urge moves you. It's your thang, do what you wanna do.

The issue is this: I say that AGW is a hoax, from soup to nuts. I say that the atmosphere is actually quite low on C02 at this time, and that condition is causing intermittent ice ages. I say that the scientists are not making the claims which you people believe them to be making - that in fact, the claims are being made by uneducated bureaucrats and talking heads. I say there is evidence of collusion and bullying which has never been explained away - and which must be answered for by those who choose to keep on believing.

I say that scissor lifts are not laboratory equipment - which is shorthand for the following: AGW is a hoax cooked up by politicians and capitalists to delude the ignorant into voting for their own demise, and sold to those unwashed by means not far short of carnival barking.

I say further that you all offer no political solution to the problem (pretending there is a problem) - that you are a complaint without a solution, and therefore unworthy of notice.

En garde, newbies. My name is Indigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.



What is this 'Peanut Gallery' shit, with the new rules.
Now I know why you won't fix my green arrow thingy; you're afraid of me.
Don't feel bad because you're not alone.
You are obnoxious, arrogant and a bullshitter. You probably smell, too.
My kinda guy.
Now, the green arrow...
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,681 06 Aug 2017, 6:29 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 65,050
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,680.87



Kaykan » 06 Aug 2017 6:25 pm wrote:
What is this 'Peanut Gallery' shit, with the new rules.
There is nothing new about the peanut gallery thread. The classic sign of a narcisissist is to think new to him means new.

Kaykan » 06 Aug 2017 6:25 pm wrote:
Now I know why you won't fix my green arrow thingy; you're afraid of me.
Terrified - but how does you being able to upvote threaten me, and how does my preventing it keep me safe?

Kaykan » 06 Aug 2017 6:25 pm wrote:
Don't feel bad because you're not alone.
You are obnoxious, arrogant and a bullshitter. You probably smell, too.
My kinda guy.
Now, the green arrow...
I'm the scared one, but your camp is the one failing to rise to the challenge.
0
Only the weakest ideas must be protected from debate, and only religions declare people heretics.

Humanity's law of the jungle: survival of the tribe
Money is a theory until spent - then a value statement


When your map disputes the territory, it's your map that is wrong.
Where there's much sizzle, expect little steak
Honesty is intentional - lies are the lazy way out


Nostalgia is a crime against what happened
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me


User avatar
Posted by Ricky Tavy
  1,222 06 Aug 2017, 6:51 pm

Cannonpointer » 06 Aug 2017 6:29 pm wrote:

I'm the scared one, but your camp is the one failing to rise to the challenge.


Our best climate guy only got registered today, after a few days of trying. I wonder how many potential posters you guys lose, because people can't get past your malfunctioning process and have no way to contact this site without being registered. Emailing doesn't work, either. If I see him, I will direct him your way. I hope you have something better to offer than empty claims we have a CO2 shortage, the loony notion scientists are doing their work as a grant scam, or the squeakings of some Koch-sucking shill. Otherwise, the CircleJerk, no-life jackals sniffing at your ass are going to be terribly disappointed.
Last edited by Ricky Tavy on 06 Aug 2017, 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0
"It's very hard not to be condescending, when you are trying to explain something to an idiot." ~ Bill Maher

User avatar
Posted by z_luzhina
  71 06 Aug 2017, 6:58 pm

z_luzhina User avatar
  
  

Posts: 54
Green Green political affiliation
Politics: Green
Gender: Male
Money: 71.16

Cannonpointer » 06 Aug 2017 6:08 pm wrote:
I challenge the newbies most equipped to defend the AGW hoax to a debate of the issue.

This is a peanut gallery thread - I paid 500 rep points for the right to move spam in this thread. I will only allow the posts of combatants to stand - the rest will be disappeared.

I will debate the negative side of the issue, and I invite you newbies to pick two people to represent the affirmative. When the two are chosen, please present.

This is not unfair to me, as I will be conferring with my friend George Washington, so it will be two minds against two.

The two who sign on to this debate are welcome to both respond to the same post, as the urge moves you. It's your thang, do what you wanna do.

The issue is this: I say that AGW is a hoax, from soup to nuts. I say that the atmosphere is actually quite low on C02 at this time, and that condition is causing intermittent ice ages. I say that the scientists are not making the claims which you people believe them to be making - that in fact, the claims are being made by uneducated bureaucrats and talking heads. I say there is evidence of collusion and bullying which has never been explained away - and which must be answered for by those who choose to keep on believing.

I say that scissor lifts are not laboratory equipment - which is shorthand for the following: AGW is a hoax cooked up by politicians and capitalists to delude the ignorant into voting for their own demise, and sold to those unwashed by means not far short of carnival barking.

I say further that you all offer no political solution to the problem (pretending there is a problem) - that you are a complaint without a solution, and therefore unworthy of notice.

En garde, newbies. My name is Indigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

Umm. Well, I'm happy to debate you. I think cnm and OE know as much about the subject as I do, but.

I have to stipulate in advance however that my posting is and will be sporadic. Real world stuff and all.

Well, where to begin. Let's start with the Keeling curve, I guess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

Do you reject this out of hand, and are you aware that the general trend of this curve is being confirmed at many locations around the globe?

As for your claim that scientists aren't really saying that...well, we should first be crystal-clear about the "that". Can you state explicitly exactly what "the claims" consist of?

Back in a bit.



...BTW, I'm not left-handed either....
0
aka kflaux

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,681 06 Aug 2017, 7:00 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 65,050
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,680.87



Kaykan » 06 Aug 2017 6:47 pm wrote:

This is for the artillery guy. I think I fucked up the quoting again.
The basic problem with your challenge is that your group seems to be drawn entirely from Redneckistan, while our invading horde represent civilized countries. This presents several problems. The Civilized World uses metric measurements, while you guys are still fixated on 'the stick with which a man beats his wife must not be thicker than his thumb'. ( A 'thumb' measurement became an inch).
Another problem are things called 'Time Zones' (Google the term). So, as you fire off your killer point, one of our scientists is in the middle of a sound sleep on the other side of the world. You'll have to be patient.

Fix my green arrow and I'll play intermediary.
Excuses.

I get it.

After the beating I gave your crew on "transsexual" rights, your equivocating is to be expected.

Keep posting - and keep trying to upvote. And learn adult patience.

Just so you know, posts, once made, remain until the person to whom they were made responds. That's how we deal with the sticky wicket of alternate time zones. That you fellows are living in the past comes as no great surprise; You appear completely unaware of the campus rape culture that has taken root in our patriarchy, such that you would be so retahded as to recommend opening the ladies' rooms to the very frat boys who are committing thousands of rapes per day on campuses across this great land.

This thread will stand, pinned and unanswered, as a testament to what a frightening specter I present. I wasn't looking forward to the hard work of deprogramming you girls, anyway. Remain in the cult you refuse to defend, son - I am accustomed to shadow boxing.

And know this: I will not deal with intermediaries. I want those who are your best. Your job is to watch, and pretend they were not beaten - that they DID defend your religion, - as shills and cosigners are wont. :)
0
Only the weakest ideas must be protected from debate, and only religions declare people heretics.

Humanity's law of the jungle: survival of the tribe
Money is a theory until spent - then a value statement


When your map disputes the territory, it's your map that is wrong.
Where there's much sizzle, expect little steak
Honesty is intentional - lies are the lazy way out


Nostalgia is a crime against what happened
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me


User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,681 06 Aug 2017, 7:09 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 65,050
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,680.87



z_luzhina » 06 Aug 2017 6:58 pm wrote:
Umm. Well, I'm happy to debate you. I think cnm and OE know as much about the subject as I do, but.

I have to stipulate in advance however that my posting is and will be sporadic. Real world stuff and all.

Well, where to begin. Let's start with the Keeling curve, I guess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

Do you reject this out of hand, and are you aware that the general trend of this curve is being confirmed at many locations around the globe?

As for your claim that scientists aren't really saying that...well, we should first be crystal-clear about the "that". Can you state explicitly exactly what "the claims" consist of?

Back in a bit.

...BTW, I'm not left-handed either....
Okay, you six fingered son of a bitch, let's talk about the keeling curve.

I embrace it out of hand. But I call it the laugher curve. Let's have a look at it.

Image

Can you tell us what is wrong with it? I doubt it. I will educate you.

A first year student of statistics learns the rules of the game.

Global extrapolation from one measurement point breaks the rules. Both numbers are rendered anecdotal by their isolation. To pretend that conditions on an active volcano are global is dishonest - you have been played for a fool.

When an argument depends on violating the very first rules of statistical presentation, something stinks on that side of the argument.

Additionally, a rise of 100 ppm in a metric which is historically close to 1000 ppm low is to be embraced with gladness, not alarm.
0
Only the weakest ideas must be protected from debate, and only religions declare people heretics.

Humanity's law of the jungle: survival of the tribe
Money is a theory until spent - then a value statement


When your map disputes the territory, it's your map that is wrong.
Where there's much sizzle, expect little steak
Honesty is intentional - lies are the lazy way out


Nostalgia is a crime against what happened
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me


O.E.'s Photo
Posted by O.E.
  184 06 Aug 2017, 7:28 pm

O.E.   
  

Posts: 116
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 184.05


AGW is a hoax cooked up by politicians and capitalists to delude the ignorant into voting for their own demise, and sold to those unwashed by means not far short of carnival barking.

I say that the scientists are not making the claims which you people believe them to be making - that in fact, the claims are being made by uneducated bureaucrats and talking heads.


Let's start out with the scientists' claims.

Demonstrate that these are not scientists' claims, rather that they're claims by uneducated bureaucrats and talking heads. Since we're talking about an earth-spanning conspiracy, name two relevant uneducated bureaucrats and talking heads who are directing that scam from their respective countries. Let's, for now, go for the relevant subset, say, the signers of the Paris Agreement. TIA.


Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change

Changes in the atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases and aerosols, in solar radiation and in land surface properties alter the energy balance of the climate system. These changes are expressed in terms of radiative forcing,[2] which is used to compare how a range of human and natural factors drive warming or cooling influences on global climate. Since the TAR, new observations and related modelling of greenhouse gases, solar activity, land surface properties and some aspects of aerosols have led to improvements in the quantitative estimates of radiative forcing.

Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (see Figure SPM.1). The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture. {2.3, 6.4, 7.3}

Changes in Greenhouse Gases from Ice Core and Modern Data


Image

Figure SPM.1. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide over the last 10,000 years (large panels) and since 1750 (inset panels). Measurements are shown from ice cores (symbols with different colours for different studies) and atmospheric samples (red lines). The corresponding radiative forcings are shown on the right hand axes of the large panels. {Figure 6.4}

  • Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas (see Figure SPM.2). The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm[3] in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. The annual carbon dioxide concentration growth rate was larger during the last 10 years (1995–2005 average: 1.9 ppm per year), than it has been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960–2005 average: 1.4 ppm per year) although there is year-to-year variability in growth rates. {2.3, 7.3}
  • The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. Annual fossil carbon dioxide emissions[4] increased from an average of 6.4 [6.0 to 6.8][5] GtC (23.5 [22.0 to 25.0] GtCO2) per year in the 1990s to 7.2 [6.9 to 7.5] GtC (26.4 [25.3 to 27.5] GtCO2) per year in 2000–2005 (2004 and 2005 data are interim estimates). Carbon dioxide emissions associated with land-use change are estimated to be 1.6 [0.5 to 2.7] GtC (5.9 [1.8 to 9.9] GtCO2) per year over the 1990s, although these estimates have a large uncertainty. {7.3}
  • The global atmospheric concentration of methane has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 715 ppb to 1732 ppb in the early 1990s, and was 1774 ppb in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of methane in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (320 to 790 ppb) as determined from ice cores. Growth rates have declined since the early 1990s, consistent with total emissions (sum of anthropogenic and natural sources) being nearly constant during this period. It is very likely[6] that the observed increase in methane concentration is due to anthropogenic activities, predominantly agriculture and fossil fuel use, but relative contributions from different source types are not well determined. {2.3, 7.4}
  • The global atmospheric nitrous oxide concentration increased from a pre-industrial value of about 270 ppb to 319 ppb in 2005. The growth rate has been approximately constant since 1980. More than a third of all nitrous oxide emissions are anthropogenic and are primarily due to agriculture. {2.3, 7.4}

The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence[7] that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2 (see Figure SPM.2). {2.3, 6.5, 2.9}

[*] The combined radiative forcing due to increases in carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W m–2, and its rate of increase during the industrial era is very likely to have been unprecedented in more than 10,000 years (see Figures SPM.1 and SPM.2). The carbon dioxide radiative forcing increased by 20% from 1995 to 2005, the largest change for any decade in at least the last 200 years. {2.3, 6.4} [*] Anthropogenic contributions to aerosols (primarily sulphate, organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate and dust) together produce a cooling effect, with a total direct radiative forcing of –0.5 [–0.9 to –0.1] W m–2 and an indirect cloud albedo forcing of –0.7 [–1.8 to –0.3] W m–2. These forcings are now better understood than at the time of the TAR due to improved in situ, satellite and ground-based measurements and more comprehensive modelling, but remain the dominant uncertainty in radiative forcing. Aerosols also influence cloud lifetime and precipitation. {2.4, 2.9, 7.5} [*] Significant anthropogenic contributions to radiative forcing come from several other sources. Tropospheric ozone changes due to emissions of ozone-forming chemicals (nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons) contribute +0.35 [+0.25 to +0.65] W m–2. The direct radiative forcing due to changes in halocarbons[8] is +0.34 [+0.31 to +0.37] W m–2. Changes in surface albedo, due to land cover changes and deposition of black carbon aerosols on snow, exert respective forcings of –0.2 [–0.4 to 0.0] and +0.1 [0.0 to +0.2] W m–2. Additional terms smaller than ±0.1 W m–2 are shown in Figure SPM.2. {2.3, 2.5, 7.2}
Radiative Forcing Components


Image

Figure SPM.2. Global average radiative forcing (RF) estimates and ranges in 2005 for anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and other important agents and mechanisms, together with the typical geographical extent (spatial scale) of the forcing and the assessed level of scientific understanding (LOSU). The net anthropogenic radiative forcing and its range are also shown. These require summing asymmetric uncertainty estimates from the component terms, and cannot be obtained by simple addition. Additional forcing factors not included here are considered to have a very low LOSU. Volcanic aerosols contribute an additional natural forcing but are not included in this figure due to their episodic nature. The range for linear contrails does not include other possible effects of aviation on cloudiness. {2.9, Figure 2.20}

  • Changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to cause a radiative forcing of +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30] W m–2, which is less than half the estimate given in the TAR. {2.7}

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2 Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence that a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. Positive forcing tends to warm the surface while negative forcing tends to cool it. In this report, radiative forcing values are for 2005 relative to pre-industrial conditions defined at 1750 and are expressed in watts per square metre (W m–2). See Glossary and Section 2.2 for further details.

3 ppm (parts per million) or ppb (parts per billion, 1 billion = 1,000 million) is the ratio of the number of greenhouse gas molecules to the total number of molecules of dry air. For example, 300 ppm means 300 molecules of a greenhouse gas per million molecules of dry air.

4 Fossil carbon dioxide emissions include those from the production, distribution and consumption of fossil fuels and as a by-product from cement production. An emission of 1 GtC corresponds to 3.67 GtCO2.

5 In general, uncertainty ranges for results given in this Summary for Policymakers are 90% uncertainty intervals unless stated otherwise, that is, there is an estimated 5% likelihood that the value could be above the range given in square brackets and 5% likelihood that the value could be below that range. Best estimates are given where available. Assessed uncertainty intervals are not always symmetric about the corresponding best estimate. Note that a number of uncertainty ranges in the Working Group I TAR corresponded to 2 standard deviations (95%), often using expert judgement.

6 In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement, of an outcome or a result: Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely > 95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely than not > 50%, Unlikely < 33%, Very unlikely < 10%, Extremely unlikely < 5% (see Box TS.1 for more details).

7 In this Summary for Policymakers the following levels of confidence have been used to express expert judgements on the correctness of the underlying science: very high confidence represents at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct; high confidence represents about an 8 out of 10 chance of being correct (see Box TS.1)

8 Halocarbon radiative forcing has been recently assessed in detail in IPCC’s Special Report on Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System (2005).




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Oh, btw, could you spare us your silly brawling? "I challenge..." Moreover, could you spare us the silly self-aggrandizing? I, together with George Washington, take on two of you? Let's make it a thread on collaborative search for what climate change there is, and who causes it. Either you deal with whoever shows up and posts pertinent stuff, or, as far as I am concerned, you can stuff it.

In case I find you once, just once, to shift goal posts, misrepresent a source, declare victory while having achieved nothing (like you just claimed regarding trans persons), or otherwise weasel to escape the flimsy substance of the OP, you can also stuff it.
2

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,681 06 Aug 2017, 7:41 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 65,050
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,680.87



Ricky Tavy » 06 Aug 2017 6:51 pm wrote:

Our best climate guy only got registered today, after a few days of trying. I wonder how many potential posters you guys lose, because people can't get past your malfunctioning process and have no way to contact this site without being registered. Emailing doesn't work, either. If I see him, I will direct him your way. I hope you have something better to offer than empty claims we have a CO2 shortage, the loony notion scientists are doing their work as a grant scam, or the squeakings of some Koch-sucking shill. Otherwise, the CircleJerk, no-life jackals sniffing at your ass are going to be terribly disappointed.
Ultimately, it is not I who must prove anything - though I shall. It is your group making the claim that all of the scientists say this, and all of the scientists say that - and it is your group which pretends that there is something we must do, which we are not doing, in order to avoid the this and the that which all of the scientists are saying.

If their claims of what scientists are saying prove true, and the responses they say we should undertake are genuinely being urged by the science community, then I will yield - I am, after all, a gentleman (and the only one in this debate, I predict - and that, based on my interactions with you, butcher of straw men).

What I bring is healthy skepticism, based upon certain problems with the narratives of those with whom I have interacted on this subject. My first exposure to it was from watching incontinent spoof, an al gore joint. My gast was entirely flabbered by the p.t. barnum quality of his presentation, right up to using a scissor lift to take his numbers "off the chart."

When the predictions he made in that train wreck universally failed to materialize, I watched aghast as liberals pranced about, happily proving that the predictions were not actual predictions, but only seemed so - proving that in fact, gore never made one substantive prediction in that entire film. In other words, they were pleased, rather than horrified, to learn that their over-creped crusader had used rhetorical devices in order to SEEM to say things he never actually said.

I have no attachment to my position on AGW. I have, rather, a commitment to live in truth, to the level of my ability to discern it. The only reason I bothered to study the matter and take a position is that I was informed by the afore mentioned film that only assholes disagree. That, and the three card monte production quality, set off my bullshitometer - the very bullshitometer which it seems your side if missing.

All of that said, I will bring a few proofs, here and there, which shine a negative light on the issue, from your perspective. That you are already curling your lip at my sources, before you see them, tells me to expect the usual quality of debate when I oppose climate cultists.
0
Only the weakest ideas must be protected from debate, and only religions declare people heretics.

Humanity's law of the jungle: survival of the tribe
Money is a theory until spent - then a value statement


When your map disputes the territory, it's your map that is wrong.
Where there's much sizzle, expect little steak
Honesty is intentional - lies are the lazy way out


Nostalgia is a crime against what happened
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me


User avatar
Posted by cnm
  287 06 Aug 2017, 7:44 pm

cnm User avatar
  
  

Posts: 198
Location: Te Ika a Maui
Democratic Socialist Democratic Socialist political affiliation
Politics: Democratic Socialist
Money: 287.43

Cannonpointer » 06 Aug 2017 6:08 pm wrote:
I challenge the newbies most equipped to defend the AGW hoax to a debate of the issue.

This is a peanut gallery thread - I paid 500 rep points for the right to move spam in this thread. I will only allow the posts of combatants to stand - the rest will be disappeared.
Screw you.

Oh, and the strawman you rode in on...
Last edited by cnm on 06 Aug 2017, 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,681 06 Aug 2017, 7:45 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 65,050
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,680.87



I rather thought so.
0
Only the weakest ideas must be protected from debate, and only religions declare people heretics.

Humanity's law of the jungle: survival of the tribe
Money is a theory until spent - then a value statement


When your map disputes the territory, it's your map that is wrong.
Where there's much sizzle, expect little steak
Honesty is intentional - lies are the lazy way out


Nostalgia is a crime against what happened
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me


User avatar
Posted by cnm
  287 06 Aug 2017, 7:47 pm

cnm User avatar
  
  

Posts: 198
Location: Te Ika a Maui
Democratic Socialist Democratic Socialist political affiliation
Politics: Democratic Socialist
Money: 287.43

Cannonpointer » 06 Aug 2017 7:45 pm wrote:
I rather thought so.


Here's your strawman.

I say that the scientists are not making the claims which you people believe them to be making - that in fact, the claims are being made by uneducated bureaucrats and talking heads.
You made them in the discussion on gender, you make them here. You can't help it.
0

User avatar
Posted by cnm
  287 06 Aug 2017, 7:50 pm

cnm User avatar
  
  

Posts: 198
Location: Te Ika a Maui
Democratic Socialist Democratic Socialist political affiliation
Politics: Democratic Socialist
Money: 287.43

These are claims I believe the scientists are making.

Image
Data.GISS

Image
NOAA Climate.gov
0

Kaykan's Photo
Posted by Kaykan
  128 06 Aug 2017, 7:56 pm

Kaykan   
  

Posts: 103
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 128.17


Cannonpointer » 06 Aug 2017 7:00 pm wrote:
Excuses.

I get it.

After the beating I gave your crew on "transsexual" rights, your equivocating is to be expected.

Keep posting - and keep trying to upvote. And learn adult patience.

Just so you know, posts, once made, remain until the person to whom they were made responds. That's how we deal with the sticky wicket of alternate time zones. That you fellows are living in the past comes as no great surprise; You appear completely unaware of the campus rape culture that has taken root in our patriarchy, such that you would be so retahded as to recommend opening the ladies' rooms to the very frat boys who are committing thousands of rapes per day on campuses across this great land.

This thread will stand, pinned and unanswered, as a testament to what a frightening specter I present. I wasn't looking forward to the hard work of deprogramming you girls, anyway. Remain in the cult you refuse to defend, son - I am accustomed to shadow boxing.

And know this: I will not deal with intermediaries. I want those who are your best. Your job is to watch, and pretend they were not beaten - that they DID defend your religion, - as shills and cosigners are wont. :)


I have been summoned by SWMBO, but I am not ashamed of anything I post, and believe that if you post it, you own it.
I'm concerned with "...posts, once made, remain until the person to whom they were made responds." I hope that this doesn't mean the posts are deleted after the response is made?
I'm impressed with your use of "sticky wicket". We'll get into that another time.
Campus rape: we had one in the 3 years I was on campus. He was a local teenager who climbed a cast iron downspout and raped a girl in her single room. I had had a nose bleed earlier in the week, and when Mr. Plod arrived to check all the men on campus, he confiscated my bloody tracksuit "for testing". That was 1963. Duke and Lacrosse occurred much later.
"Patriarchy". I hope I detected a note of disdain? I agree.
" ...frat boys who are committing thousands of rapes per day on campuses across this great land." I detect hyperbole. Proof is needed.
"...frightening specter". "...cult". Please.
"...intermediaries". I was offering to run and find him, not pass on his messages.
Two are currently posting. There is yet another.

If you could tone down your manly man masculinity, and take some estrogen pills, and stop using an overtly aggressive avatar, we'll get along just fine.

And I did not debate you on the transgender topic. I'm on the horns of a dilemma.

Otherwise, carry on, chaps.
1

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,681 06 Aug 2017, 7:59 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 65,050
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,680.87



cnm » 06 Aug 2017 7:47 pm wrote:
Here's your strawman.


You made them in the discussion on gender, you make them here. You can't help it.
You need to brush up on the definition of straw man. For it to be a straw man, I would have to falsely assign a position to you, and then argue against that false position.

I made a specific claim about MY position, which can be falsified. If you show actual abstracts by actual research scientists making the claims that have you calling for action, then my claim is gutted.

By definition, that is the opposite of a straw man. If you falsify that claim, I lose the debate - or at a minimum, that element of the debate. I might go on to say, "I do not believe the scientists you have presented, and here is why - but I acknowledge that you falsified my claim." So the debate COULD go on - by my position would be weakened.

I made no claim of a position on your behalf - I made an affirmative claim - STAKED MY OWN POSITION - that you are being misled on the science, by liars.

I do not stoop to straw men, and any fallacies in which I engage are both innocently engaged in because of my ignorance, and immediately abandoned when I am educated as to their fallacious nature. I am an evergreen student - a perpetual learner. I am a gentleman. I am an intellectual. And I predict I am going destroy the arguments of whichever of you undertake to prove that climate change is not a hoax, as I have done those of the folks who preceded you.

If not, you will most likely have both my surrender and my gratitude, as I do not wish to continue in error.
0
Only the weakest ideas must be protected from debate, and only religions declare people heretics.

Humanity's law of the jungle: survival of the tribe
Money is a theory until spent - then a value statement


When your map disputes the territory, it's your map that is wrong.
Where there's much sizzle, expect little steak
Honesty is intentional - lies are the lazy way out


Nostalgia is a crime against what happened
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me


User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,681 06 Aug 2017, 8:01 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 65,050
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,680.87



Kaykan » 06 Aug 2017 7:56 pm wrote:

I have been summoned by SWMBO, but I am not ashamed of anything I post, and believe that if you post it, you own it.
I'm concerned with "...posts, once made, remain until the person to whom they were made responds." I hope that this doesn't mean the posts are deleted after the response is made?
I'm impressed with your use of "sticky wicket". We'll get into that another time.
Campus rape: we had one in the 3 years I was on campus. He was a local teenager who climbed a cast iron downspout and raped a girl in her single room. I had had a nose bleed earlier in the week, and when Mr. Plod arrived to check all the men on campus, he confiscated my bloody tracksuit "for testing". That was 1963. Duke and Lacrosse occurred much later.
"Patriarchy". I hope I detected a note of disdain? I agree.
" ...frat boys who are committing thousands of rapes per day on campuses across this great land." I detect hyperbole. Proof is needed.
"...frightening specter". "...cult". Please.
"...intermediaries". I was offering to run and find him, not pass on his messages.
Two are currently posting. There is yet another.

If you could tone down your manly man masculinity, and take some estrogen pills, and stop using an overtly aggressive avatar, we'll get along just fine.

And I did not debate you on the transgender topic. I'm on the horns of a dilemma.

Otherwise, carry on, chaps.
Being on horns is effeminate. Get off them.

As to that other stuff, when I take estrogen, I shit carpenters.
0
Only the weakest ideas must be protected from debate, and only religions declare people heretics.

Humanity's law of the jungle: survival of the tribe
Money is a theory until spent - then a value statement


When your map disputes the territory, it's your map that is wrong.
Where there's much sizzle, expect little steak
Honesty is intentional - lies are the lazy way out


Nostalgia is a crime against what happened
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me


User avatar
Posted by cnm
  287 06 Aug 2017, 8:07 pm

cnm User avatar
  
  

Posts: 198
Location: Te Ika a Maui
Democratic Socialist Democratic Socialist political affiliation
Politics: Democratic Socialist
Money: 287.43

bigsky » 06 Aug 2017 8:02 pm wrote:
Cannonpointer » 06 Aug 2017 7:59 pm wrote:
You need to brush up on the definition of straw man. For it to be a straw man, I would have to falsely assign a position to you, and then argue against that false position.
You did, in the passage I quoted. Republican reading comprehension disease?
0

User avatar
Posted by cnm
  287 06 Aug 2017, 8:08 pm

cnm User avatar
  
  

Posts: 198
Location: Te Ika a Maui
Democratic Socialist Democratic Socialist political affiliation
Politics: Democratic Socialist
Money: 287.43

Cannonpointer » 06 Aug 2017 7:59 pm wrote:

I do not stoop to straw men
You do, all the time. I just pointed one out.

I say that the scientists are not making the claims which you people believe them to be making - that in fact, the claims are being made by uneducated bureaucrats and talking heads.
You assigned me a postition.
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,681 06 Aug 2017, 8:09 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 65,050
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,680.87



O.E. » 06 Aug 2017 7:28 pm wrote:

Let's start out with the scientists' claims.

Demonstrate that these are not scientists' claims, rather that they're claims by uneducated bureaucrats and talking heads. Since we're talking about an earth-spanning conspiracy, name two relevant uneducated bureaucrats and talking heads who are directing that scam from their respective countries. Let's, for now, go for the relevant subset, say, the signers of the Paris Agreement. TIA.

Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change

Changes in the atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases and aerosols, in solar radiation and in land surface properties alter the energy balance of the climate system. These changes are expressed in terms of radiative forcing,[2] which is used to compare how a range of human and natural factors drive warming or cooling influences on global climate. Since the TAR, new observations and related modelling of greenhouse gases, solar activity, land surface properties and some aspects of aerosols have led to improvements in the quantitative estimates of radiative forcing.

Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (see Figure SPM.1). The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture. {2.3, 6.4, 7.3}

Changes in Greenhouse Gases from Ice Core and Modern Data

Image

Figure SPM.1. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide over the last 10,000 years (large panels) and since 1750 (inset panels). Measurements are shown from ice cores (symbols with different colours for different studies) and atmospheric samples (red lines). The corresponding radiative forcings are shown on the right hand axes of the large panels. {Figure 6.4}

  • Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas (see Figure SPM.2). The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm[3] in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. The annual carbon dioxide concentration growth rate was larger during the last 10 years (1995–2005 average: 1.9 ppm per year), than it has been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960–2005 average: 1.4 ppm per year) although there is year-to-year variability in growth rates. {2.3, 7.3}
  • The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. Annual fossil carbon dioxide emissions[4] increased from an average of 6.4 [6.0 to 6.8][5] GtC (23.5 [22.0 to 25.0] GtCO2) per year in the 1990s to 7.2 [6.9 to 7.5] GtC (26.4 [25.3 to 27.5] GtCO2) per year in 2000–2005 (2004 and 2005 data are interim estimates). Carbon dioxide emissions associated with land-use change are estimated to be 1.6 [0.5 to 2.7] GtC (5.9 [1.8 to 9.9] GtCO2) per year over the 1990s, although these estimates have a large uncertainty. {7.3}
  • The global atmospheric concentration of methane has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 715 ppb to 1732 ppb in the early 1990s, and was 1774 ppb in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of methane in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (320 to 790 ppb) as determined from ice cores. Growth rates have declined since the early 1990s, consistent with total emissions (sum of anthropogenic and natural sources) being nearly constant during this period. It is very likely[6] that the observed increase in methane concentration is due to anthropogenic activities, predominantly agriculture and fossil fuel use, but relative contributions from different source types are not well determined. {2.3, 7.4}
  • The global atmospheric nitrous oxide concentration increased from a pre-industrial value of about 270 ppb to 319 ppb in 2005. The growth rate has been approximately constant since 1980. More than a third of all nitrous oxide emissions are anthropogenic and are primarily due to agriculture. {2.3, 7.4}

The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence[7] that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2 (see Figure SPM.2). {2.3, 6.5, 2.9}

[*] The combined radiative forcing due to increases in carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W m–2, and its rate of increase during the industrial era is very likely to have been unprecedented in more than 10,000 years (see Figures SPM.1 and SPM.2). The carbon dioxide radiative forcing increased by 20% from 1995 to 2005, the largest change for any decade in at least the last 200 years. {2.3, 6.4} [*] Anthropogenic contributions to aerosols (primarily sulphate, organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate and dust) together produce a cooling effect, with a total direct radiative forcing of –0.5 [–0.9 to –0.1] W m–2 and an indirect cloud albedo forcing of –0.7 [–1.8 to –0.3] W m–2. These forcings are now better understood than at the time of the TAR due to improved in situ, satellite and ground-based measurements and more comprehensive modelling, but remain the dominant uncertainty in radiative forcing. Aerosols also influence cloud lifetime and precipitation. {2.4, 2.9, 7.5} [*] Significant anthropogenic contributions to radiative forcing come from several other sources. Tropospheric ozone changes due to emissions of ozone-forming chemicals (nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons) contribute +0.35 [+0.25 to +0.65] W m–2. The direct radiative forcing due to changes in halocarbons[8] is +0.34 [+0.31 to +0.37] W m–2. Changes in surface albedo, due to land cover changes and deposition of black carbon aerosols on snow, exert respective forcings of –0.2 [–0.4 to 0.0] and +0.1 [0.0 to +0.2] W m–2. Additional terms smaller than ±0.1 W m–2 are shown in Figure SPM.2. {2.3, 2.5, 7.2}
Radiative Forcing Components

Image

Figure SPM.2. Global average radiative forcing (RF) estimates and ranges in 2005 for anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and other important agents and mechanisms, together with the typical geographical extent (spatial scale) of the forcing and the assessed level of scientific understanding (LOSU). The net anthropogenic radiative forcing and its range are also shown. These require summing asymmetric uncertainty estimates from the component terms, and cannot be obtained by simple addition. Additional forcing factors not included here are considered to have a very low LOSU. Volcanic aerosols contribute an additional natural forcing but are not included in this figure due to their episodic nature. The range for linear contrails does not include other possible effects of aviation on cloudiness. {2.9, Figure 2.20}

  • Changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to cause a radiative forcing of +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30] W m–2, which is less than half the estimate given in the TAR. {2.7}

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2 Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence that a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. Positive forcing tends to warm the surface while negative forcing tends to cool it. In this report, radiative forcing values are for 2005 relative to pre-industrial conditions defined at 1750 and are expressed in watts per square metre (W m–2). See Glossary and Section 2.2 for further details.

3 ppm (parts per million) or ppb (parts per billion, 1 billion = 1,000 million) is the ratio of the number of greenhouse gas molecules to the total number of molecules of dry air. For example, 300 ppm means 300 molecules of a greenhouse gas per million molecules of dry air.

4 Fossil carbon dioxide emissions include those from the production, distribution and consumption of fossil fuels and as a by-product from cement production. An emission of 1 GtC corresponds to 3.67 GtCO2.

5 In general, uncertainty ranges for results given in this Summary for Policymakers are 90% uncertainty intervals unless stated otherwise, that is, there is an estimated 5% likelihood that the value could be above the range given in square brackets and 5% likelihood that the value could be below that range. Best estimates are given where available. Assessed uncertainty intervals are not always symmetric about the corresponding best estimate. Note that a number of uncertainty ranges in the Working Group I TAR corresponded to 2 standard deviations (95%), often using expert judgement.

6 In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement, of an outcome or a result: Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely > 95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely than not > 50%, Unlikely < 33%, Very unlikely < 10%, Extremely unlikely < 5% (see Box TS.1 for more details).

7 In this Summary for Policymakers the following levels of confidence have been used to express expert judgements on the correctness of the underlying science: very high confidence represents at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct; high confidence represents about an 8 out of 10 chance of being correct (see Box TS.1)

8 Halocarbon radiative forcing has been recently assessed in detail in IPCC’s Special Report on Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System (2005).



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh, btw, could you spare us your silly brawling? "I challenge..." Moreover, could you spare us the silly self-aggrandizing? I, together with George Washington, take on two of you? Let's make it a thread on collaborative search for what climate change there is, and who causes it. Either you deal with whoever shows up and posts pertinent stuff, or, as far as I am concerned, you can stuff it.

In case I find you once, just once, to shift goal posts, misrepresent a source, declare victory while having achieved nothing (like you just claimed regarding trans persons), or otherwise weasel to escape the flimsy substance of the OP, you can also stuff it.
If you resort to straw manning out the wazoo as ricky tavi did in that debate - or if you have the bald faced gall to declare that he did not - YOU can stuff it, sonny.

I will not be straw manned half to death in 30 discrete posts, and then lectured by some fraud for responding to it by declaring victory.

I very much want a clean debate with a genuine intellectual who is wiling to defend his theses - but I will not participate in a bullshit fest with a dishonest ass. And if you say that ricky tavi did not straw man me, mr these are my conditions, then you are a dishonest ass and I will not waste my time with you.

Now, you let ME know if you can meet that condition. If so, then I will peruse the top portion of your post and appropriately respond - otherwise, shove off
0
Only the weakest ideas must be protected from debate, and only religions declare people heretics.

Humanity's law of the jungle: survival of the tribe
Money is a theory until spent - then a value statement


When your map disputes the territory, it's your map that is wrong.
Where there's much sizzle, expect little steak
Honesty is intentional - lies are the lazy way out


Nostalgia is a crime against what happened
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me


User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,681 06 Aug 2017, 8:11 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 65,050
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,680.87



cnm » 06 Aug 2017 8:08 pm wrote:
You do, all the time. I just pointed one out.

You assigned me a postition.
No, I made an affirmative claim that you are being lied to. I already explained that it is falsifiable, and how to falsify it.

If I assigned a position to you, WHAT WAS THAT POSITION?

Learn what a straw man is and isn't - I suggest you read anything ricky tavi wrote in our debate about "transsexuals."
0
Only the weakest ideas must be protected from debate, and only religions declare people heretics.

Humanity's law of the jungle: survival of the tribe
Money is a theory until spent - then a value statement


When your map disputes the territory, it's your map that is wrong.
Where there's much sizzle, expect little steak
Honesty is intentional - lies are the lazy way out


Nostalgia is a crime against what happened
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me



Next

Return to No Holds Barred Political Forum

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

Who has visited this topic