Astronaut Claims Climate Alarmism is Complete .. Bu .. Bunk

[Lagboltz]

I had asked for you to provide evidence of that claim and you went off on a tangent. So I shall accept it as the only proof you can to offer to substantiate your claim:

On the one hand, you deny belief in AGW. On the other, you refer to AGW as well established science, and it's opponents as a bunch of assholes with crap arguments...

You consider that disassociating with the politics? (Oh, that must be why you accused me of emotional politics.. I think you've got the two terms confused.)

I've called you on yours, is this all we should expect to see from you... Fallacies and self contradictions?

You are the one trying to take this on a tangent of who is smokescreening who.

Self contradictions? To me, concern about future climate is like being in a car with a fast reckless driver. You can be concerned that he is going to crash without forming a solid belief that he is or isn't. It is not as black and white to me as it is to you. That is not a self contradiction.

 

[GenSeneca]

You are the one trying to take this on a tangent of who is smokescreening who.

You claim the ability to disassociate with the politics... Where you going to offer some evidence of that? Because defending AGW as "well established science", and referring to it's opponents as assholes with crap arguments, while actively denying that you actually believe in or support AGW, is not an example of dissociating with the politics.

Self contradictions?

Yes, that is the act of contradicting oneself through word and/or deed: To say one thing and do another.

To me, concern about future climate is like being in a car with a fast reckless driver.

Interesting, do tell us who you believe is driving.... Is Humanity the fast reckless driver? Perhaps you believe our old friend CO2 is driving...

You can be concerned that he is going to crash without forming a solid belief that he is or isn't.

You've already have formed a solid belief though... AGW is well established science and everything else is just crap arguments from a bunch of assholes. That being the case, your only concern would be the crap spewing assholes achieving political power equal to, or scarier yet - greater than, the political power of your Pro-AGW group... Which must be tough since you won't even admit publicly to believing in AGW.

It is not as black and white to me as it is to you.

Clearly it is... Anyone who agrees with AGW is good, smart, concerned, and any other positive character attribute you'd like to apply, while everyone who disagrees is anti-science, dumb, asshole, full of crap, and any other negative character attribute you'd like to apply. Belief in AGW good, all other beliefs bad. Doesn't get more black and white than that.

But, clearly you've got a firm grasp on what it takes to rise above the petty left vs. right politics of the situation and approach things from a purely logical, rational viewpoint. So, I wish you well in converting others by way of mocking and ridiculing them, and their positions, until they relent. It's a brilliant approach, one I don't think anyone has tried before... Not successfully anyway, but I'm sure you have what it takes to be a winner!

That is not a self contradiction.

Sen: Do you believe in AGW?
Lag: No, and I never claimed to. But it's well established science and any attempt to question or rebuff it's claims is anti-science nonsense from right wing sheeple pushing a political agenda.
Sen: Would you like to see the definition of a contradiction again?

 

[Lagboltz]

You claim the ability to disassociate with the politics... Where you going to offer some evidence of that? Because defending AGW as "well established science", and referring to it's opponents as assholes with crap arguments, while actively denying that you actually believe in or support AGW, is not an example of dissociating with the politics.

You are totally confused. I never said that AGW is well established. What I was referring to as well established was the science involving sea levels, the general upward trend in land and ocean temperature, the concept of greenhouse gases, the concept of backscattering, etc.

I definitely was not referring to all opponents of AGW as assholes with crap arguments. The assholes or ones with crap arguments I was specifically referring to are You, TexTea, palerider, and to a lesser extent, dogtowner, and GBfan. The OP about an astronaut was a crap argument and so was reference to Anglia.

Interesting, do tell us who you believe is driving.... Is Humanity the fast reckless driver? Perhaps you believe our old friend CO2 is driving...You've already have formed a solid belief though... AGW is well established science and everything else is just crap arguments from a bunch of assholes.

You totally did not understand the metaphor. Read it again. It was not about climate change at all. It was trying to get you to understand the concept of concern and how it differs from solid belief. Looking at the science lead me to concern, not to belief.

That being the case, your only concern would be the crap spewing assholes achieving political power equal to, or scarier yet... blah blah

Again the crap spewing assholes are the guys on this forum I mentioned. I have spent time researching scientists (the 3%?) who do not believe in AWG, and I understand their arguments. Many of them definitely were not assholes, and were not spewing crap arguments.

etc.

The rest of your remarks seem to be from blind anger and emotion based on your difficulty telling the difference between concern and belief. You definitely don't understand how someone can be interested in the technical aspects of climate science and not come away with a specific solid belief. You might consider that not all liberals think the same way and you shouldn't typecast them and rant at the type you cast.


As I said before, you will believe what you will, but if you come off with false spin, idiocy, and empty jeering, I will call you on it. If you have comments about specific serious aspects of the science that you feel casts doubt on AGW, I will respect that.

 

[GenSeneca]

The rest of your remarks seem to be from blind anger and emotion...

You are totally confused. I never said that AGW is well established...I definitely was not referring to all opponents of AGW as assholes with crap arguments.

Totally......

If you want to believe there is no AGW, fine, but you are replacing some well established science with crap arguments and acting like assholes in the process.

.....Confused.... Well, one of us is anyway.

I can easily disassociate from the politics but you guys can't.

As evidenced by.... doing the exact opposite of what you claim to be able to do.... Interesting technique, counter-effective but interesting.

You totally did not understand the metaphor. Read it again. It was not about climate change at all. It was trying to get you to understand the concept of concern and how it differs from solid belief. Looking at the science lead me to concern, not to belief.

My concern is your belief regarding the following unanswered question:

"To me, concern about future climate is like being in a car with a fast reckless driver." - Lag

Who, or what, do you believe the 'fast and reckless driver' of our climate to be?

I have spent time researching scientists (the 3%?) who do not believe in AWG

Interesting...

Many of them definitely were not assholes, and were not spewing crap arguments.

In all sincerity, please take some time to give us an example of what you would consider to be a credible argument against AGW, one that you consider to be based on well established science.

I had no idea such a thing existed... (Someone get pale's Anti-Sciencey ass in here... He should hear this)

You definitely don't understand how someone can be interested in the technical aspects of climate science and not come away with a specific solid belief.

I think I got it right the first time... You're merely concerned about the future climate, which you specifically and solidly believe has a fast and reckless driver at the helm. ...Who is that driver again?

You might consider that not all liberals think the same way and you shouldn't typecast them and rant at the type you cast.

Now you're the one who's mistaken, or more accurately, projecting. Most of the time, I just point out the contradictions in what others say, do, and believe. You're not alone, as I'll point out in a moment. Most people become so defensive about the subject matter, it's so emotionally personal to them from being here on the front lines of the forums, that they begin to see any type of challenge as an argument against what it is they believe and immediately try to attack whatever they perceive the threat to be... For example:

The assholes or ones with crap arguments I was specifically referring to are You, TexTea, palerider, and to a lesser extent, dogtowner, and GBfan.

Each of the people you've named, has squared off with my dictionary at one time or another, and I respect each and every one of them as individuals. I'm being polite when I say GB was no big fan of mine when I most recently returned. He, like you, took it as a challenge in opposition to his belief when asked to be dictionary specific about what it was he actually believed. He immediately went on the offensive, looking to attack my views.

Because I offered no opposing viewpoint, aside from pointing out his conflict with my dictionary, he resorted to stereotyping me as a leftist, and began saying some very colorful things that he probably says about a lot of people he perceives as being in disagreement with his position. (GB has gone from that to saying he loves it when we, "violently agree" on other subjects) Most people react the same way, especially if they actually try to define their own beliefs with the aid of a dictionary.

People tend to realize the definitions of the words they use to describe what they believe, actually contradict what it is they believe. People often use words with a positive connotation, while the antonym of the word they used matches the concept they're actually describing. Discovering that reality can be very difficult for some people to accept. When I use my dictionary to point out the contradiction, most people choose to write me off as an asshole with crap arguments, or a dress wearing coward, or... sorry, but I'd blush repeating what GB said about me.

As I said before, you will believe what you will, but if you come off with false spin, idiocy, and empty jeering, I will call you on it. If you have comments about specific serious aspects of the science that you feel casts doubt on AGW, I will respect that.

Can you respect being asked to specifically define what it is you believe and support? That is what I've asked you to do here, by answering a few questions.
Or ...
Do you consider that simple request to be merely false spin, idiocy, and empty jeering, by some asshole with a crap argument? It would seem you do.

 

[Lagboltz]

Who, or what, do you believe the 'fast and reckless driver' of our climate to be?

I already mentioned that my concern is an escalation in the rise of sea levels from warming oceans and melting ice, and the the general upward trend in land and ocean temperature. See the graphs I gave a few posts back.

In all sincerity, please take some time to give us an example of what you would consider to be a credible argument against AGW, one that you consider to be based on well established science.

I had no idea such a thing existed... (Someone get pale's Anti-Sciencey ass in here... He should hear this)

"In all sincerity" ... "pale's Anti-Sciencey ass..." That jeering is an odd way of being "all sincere".

There are videos at the site http://www.nipccreport.org/ of the NIPCC giving a talk. One of the speakers was a dolt, but most others were sincere. I listened to two hours of their videos. Many of their archival reports are idiotic spin. Some are OK.

Can you respect being asked to specifically define what it is you believe and support?

What I believe are the concerns mentioned in the first paragraph of this post.

You obviously laugh at the "97%", but what do you actually believe concerning global climate?

 

[GenSeneca]

I already mentioned that my concern is an escalation in the rise of sea levels from warming oceans and melting ice, and the the general upward trend in land and ocean temperature.

Cause and Effect. Once again you've stated your concern for the "effect". We've already established your concern with the "effect"... I have been very patiently asking you to specifically identify the "cause" of that effect.

You described the "cause", the 'driver' in your analogy, as being 'fast and reckless'. This indicates that you have drawn a conclusion about the "cause", one that's specific enough that you choose to describe it with those particular adjectives.... So...

Who, or what, do you believe is the (fast and reckless) "cause" of the effects (rising sea levels, warming oceans, melting ice, etc.) you're concerned about?

There are videos at the site http://www.nipccreport.org/ of the NIPCC giving a talk. One of the speakers was a dolt, but most others were sincere. I listened to two hours of their videos.

Thanks for the link Lag. You seem to have a more friendly tone now as well. I hope this is a sign that you'll now consider answering my question.

You obviously laugh at the "97%", but what do you actually believe concerning global climate?

I'm still waiting to find out what you actually believe... Although I am curious now... What is it you believe those 97% are in agreement about?

 

[Lagboltz]

Cause and Effect. Once again you've stated your concern for the "effect". We've already established your concern with the "effect"... I have been very patiently asking you to specifically identify the "cause" of that effect.

You described the "cause", the 'driver' in your analogy, as being 'fast and reckless'. This indicates that you have drawn a conclusion about the "cause", one that's specific enough that you choose to describe it with those particular adjectives.... So...

Who, or what, do you believe is the (fast and reckless) "cause" of the effects (rising sea levels, warming oceans, melting ice, etc.) you're concerned about?

I'm still waiting to find out what you actually believe... Although I am curious now... What is it you believe those 97% are in agreement about?

You are reading way more into the metaphor than was intended. It isn't even really a metaphor. It's an example. I tried to accommodate you, but if you really want to know everything about it, I will go into boring detail and hope you will forget it.

The fast and reckless driver was Tom. I forgot his last name. We were late in going to a meeting across Detroit to the GM tech center and he was weaving in and out of traffic. He said he could push his car to 130 mph on a clear stretch I finally emphatically told him to slow down because I was concerned we would end upside down in a ditch. Did I actually believe we would or would not. No. I didn't have a belief. I had a concern.

I thought that was a good example to describe a situation of concern about a future event, but no belief about what I thought would be the actual outcome. That is because you kept pressing me on my belief when I told you I had none. Similarly, I have a concern about the climate. Do I believe changing climate will or will not soon end in disaster? No. I don't have a belief. I have a concern. I have already given you detail on my concern and belief in climate change.

Yes I beat this topic to a boring death, but you keep over analyzing it. If you want to keep my interest, please drop reference to the metaphor. Sarcasm alert: If you have more interest in my 'fast and reckless' example, I can give you more detail on Tom and the other passengers.

 

[GenSeneca]

I tried to accommodate you, but if you really want to know everything about it, I will go into boring detail and hope you will forget it.

I'm really not interested in reading everything you'd prefer I'd have asked you about, instead, you can accommodate me by addressing the very specific item I have repeatedly asked about.

I thought that was a good example to describe a situation of concern about a future event, but no belief about what I thought would be the actual outcome.

Let me say this once again, so that you may grasp my full comprehension of what it is you've stated...

You're concerned about future climate, because there are many possible outcomes, but you have no belief regarding which outcome is most likely to happen.

Please, if that is correct, then lets move forward... If that is incorrect, please make the necessary corrections to that sentence, and post it as part of your reply.

I have already given you detail on my concern and belief in climate change.

As I tried to point out, yes, your concerns and beliefs regarding the outcome (effect) are well established. I would certainly prefer you move on to a very specific item you have yet to address: Cause

Break out the trusty dictionary here....

Law of Causation: a principle in philosophy: every change in nature is produced by some cause.

Unless you'd like to take a moment here to claim changes in our climate occur entirely without cause, we shall continue.

So, let's take a step forward in the discussion by establishing your concerns and beliefs with regard to the cause of climate change. Again, looking for concerns and beliefs with specific regard to what you see as the cause. Just to make sure that's clear: I am NOT asking you to once again reiterate your concerns and beliefs about the outcome.

OK, here goes....

Q: What causes climate change?

If you want to keep my interest, please drop reference to the metaphor.

Done... But now the dictionary is involved, and that dress wearing coward can be a real bastard.

Sarcasm alert: If you have more interest in my 'fast and reckless' example, I can give you more detail on Tom and the other passengers.

Believe it or not, I actually enjoy the wide range of personalities we have on this forum. You are the one and only Lagboltz there is. While you may self identify as part of a particular group, and no matter how similar you are to any other individual in that group, none of those other individuals is, or ever could be, you. Be yourself and let 'er rip whenever you feel like it. Let your own unique personality be part of the discussion, I certainly encourage that... But do try to answer my question in the process, so that we may both be entertained.

 

[Texas_tea]

You are reading way more into the metaphor than was intended. It isn't even really a metaphor. It's an example. I tried to accommodate you, but if you really want to know everything about it, I will go into boring detail and hope you will forget it.

The fast and reckless driver was Tom. I forgot his last name. We were late in going to a meeting across Detroit to the GM tech center and he was weaving in and out of traffic. He said he could push his car to 130 mph on a clear stretch I finally emphatically told him to slow down because I was concerned we would end upside down in a ditch. Did I actually believe we would or would not. No. I didn't have a belief. I had a concern.

I thought that was a good example to describe a situation of concern about a future event, but no belief about what I thought would be the actual outcome. That is because you kept pressing me on my belief when I told you I had none. Similarly, I have a concern about the climate. Do I believe changing climate will or will not soon end in disaster? No. I don't have a belief. I have a concern. I have already given you detail on my concern and belief in climate change.

Yes I beat this topic to a boring death, but you keep over analyzing it. If you want to keep my interest, please drop reference to the metaphor. Sarcasm alert: If you have more interest in my 'fast and reckless' example, I can give you more detail on Tom and the other passengers.

Lag can you explain why the US Government manipulated and lied about historical temperatures?

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/

Can you explain the connection between Communism and the global warming assholes?

http://www.commieblaster.com/climategate/

No .... I suppose you cannot .....

Because you yourself are a communist leftist asshole and despite all your scientific psychobabble ..... normal thinking Americans KNOW who you are!

 

[Lagboltz]

OK, here goes....

Q: What causes climate change?

My, you are sure verbose about the simplest things.

I am willing to go into detail about the controversy and different slants of climate change. I have gone through 282 exchanges on the subject with ill-tempered palerider who was very immature and had countless absurd ideas of physics. You seem to be heading in a similar direction. You first have to tell me why you laugh at the "97%" (see post #34) and what your view on the controversy is so I can understand if you are playing a game, and what sort of game it would be.

 

[GBFan]

My, you are sure verbose about the simplest things.

I am willing to go into detail about the controversy and different slants of climate change. I have gone through 282 exchanges on the subject with ill-tempered palerider who was very immature and had countless absurd ideas of physics. You seem to be heading in a similar direction. You first have to tell me why you laugh at the "97%" (see post #34) and what your view on the controversy is so I can understand if you are playing a game, and what sort of game it would be.

"I dunno --- you mean you don't?"

 

[GenSeneca]

My, you are sure verbose about the simplest things.

Indeed I am... but making such an observation, did nothing to answer the question.

I am willing to go into detail about the controversy and different slants of climate change.

I have only been asking for one detail, one slant, but it seems to be only slantily clad detail you're not willing to discuss.

I have gone through 282 exchanges on the subject with ill-tempered palerider who was very immature and had countless absurd ideas of physics. You seem to be heading in a similar direction.

Oh dear... You've taken to poisoning the well... You're hoping to easily discredit my views on the topic, without the need to explain or defend your own... Not a good indication of future cooperation. Luckily, my dictionary is immune to poison.. he really is a tough bastard.

You first have to tell me why you laugh at the "97%" (see post #34) and what your view on the controversy is so I can understand if you are playing a game, and what sort of game it would be.

I'll save us both some time: I'm just an asshole with crap arguments... Consider my views subject to have been discredited, poisoned to death by ill temperance, immaturity, and just bad ideas about physics. Since I no longer have an opposing viewpoint for you to attack, we're back to the part where you explain your views on the cause... or more accurately, we're back to you avoiding that request.

 

[Lagboltz]

"I dunno --- you mean you don't?"

I don't unnerstand. --- please elaborate.

 

[Lagboltz]

Indeed I am... but making such an observation, did nothing to answer the question.

I have only been asking for one detail, one slant, but it seems to be only slantily clad detail you're not willing to discuss.

Oh dear... You've taken to poisoning the well... You're hoping to easily discredit my views on the topic, without the need to explain or defend your own... Not a good indication of future cooperation. Luckily, my dictionary is immune to poison.. he really is a tough bastard.

I'll save us both some time: I'm just an asshole with crap arguments... Consider my views subject to have been discredited, poisoned to death by ill temperance, immaturity, and just bad ideas about physics. Since I no longer have an opposing viewpoint for you to attack, we're back to the part where you explain your views on the cause... or more accurately, we're back to you avoiding that request.

You are being sarcastic, but I sense a bit of another palerider type. OK let's start where he and I left off.

The graphic clearly shows 161 wm2 being absorbed by the surface of the earth from the sun. It then shows a total of 493 wm2 radiating from the surface of the earth. It says surface radiation in the most clear way possible. 161 absorbed by the surface from the sun.....493 radiated out from the surface. The AGW hypothesis is based on an energy budget that is flawed beyond comprehension....anyone who actually believes in the pseudoscience behind this energy budget is....to be polite...a f'ing idiot.

This graphic, perhaps with slight modifications, is what all climate scientists believe, both the "97%" and the "3%". Do you find any large flaws in it?

 

[dogtowner]

You are being sarcastic, but I sense a bit of another palerider type. OK let's start where he and I left off.

This graphic, perhaps with slight modifications, is what all climate scientists believe, both the "97%" and the "3%". Do you find any large flaws in it?

Gen pays close attention to details. He enjoys it and understands that they matter making an argument.