1 edit
Originally posted by C HessI totally concur with every bit of that. Just like as what you said, we all are sometimes wrong, but notice how we always admit WE can be wrong and admit when WE have made a mistake but he never does! For starters, I several times misread his posts but then admitted it as soon as I realized it and even explicitly apologies to him on several occasions when I did and yet he does no such thing whenever he misreads my (or your ) posts but rather chooses to make out I am wrong about everything just because I admitted I was wrong about one thing and then calls ME "arrogant"!!! And now he has made it apparent he even thinks he is another Galileo and yet he thinks WE are the ones being arrogant!! Such is his delusional opinionated arrogance. He is just way out of it and, I couldn't agree more, he is an idiot.
Again you demonstrate how little attention you've paid to our back and forth. I'm clearly not an alarmist. What pisses me off is not that you got something wrong. We all do that. What pisses me off is that you're clearly not interested in reading, but only writing. You're coming here, talking about how co2 can't be the only factor. I link to a talk and an int ...[text shortened]... blem with being shown wrong. It's how I came to my current position on climate change after all.
Originally posted by humyWhen I tell you that the vast majority of climate scientists do not agree with your alarmist views do you accept that fact or do you reject it?
Unlike you, I don't think I understand climate change better than the vast majority of climate scientists. The vast majority of climate scientists don't agree with Fred Singer. In every profession you get a minority few that goes against the principles of their own profession and science is no exception. In fact, I guess most climate scientists would call him ...[text shortened]... no science credentials, that just happens to agree with what he says, wouldn't call him a moron.
"The vast majority of climate scientists don't agree with Fred Singer."
What specifically do they not agree with him about? They actually agree that your alarmist views are WRONG. That is a fact. Most climate scientists would consider you a moron because of your extreme alarmist views, yet you pretend your views are normal in the climate science community. They most certainly are not!
Originally posted by Metal BrainOne thing I'm thinking about is - why do you try to convince them that you are right and they are wrong? What makes you try so hard in this? What difference does it make?
When I tell you that the vast majority of climate scientists do not agree with your alarmist views do you accept that fact or do you reject it?
"The vast majority of climate scientists don't agree with Fred Singer."
What specifically do they not agree with him about? They actually agree that your alarmist views are WRONG. That is a fact. Most cl ...[text shortened]... you pretend your views are normal in the climate science community. They most certainly are not!
Another thing - you obviously don't care if they are your friends or your enemies, right? Don't you think it is harder to convince them that you are right and they are wrong if you make them your enemies?
And a third thing - what reward is there for you if you end up 'winning' this fight?
Originally posted by FabianFnasI am sure we would all want him to answer all those questions; which is precisely why, out of pure spite, he never will.
One thing I'm thinking about is - why do you try to convince them that you are right and they are wrong? What makes you try so hard in this? What difference does it make?
Another thing - you obviously don't care if they are your friends or your enemies, right? Don't you think it is harder to convince them that you are right and they are wrong if you ma ...[text shortened]... enemies?
And a third thing - what reward is there for you if you end up 'winning' this fight?
Originally posted by humyWhen I tell you that the vast majority of climate scientists do not agree with your alarmist views do you accept that fact or do you reject it?
I am sure we would all want him to answer all those questions; which is precisely why, out of pure spite, he never will.
Originally posted by humyIt would be fitting for the person that first dreamed up global warming due to greenhouse gasses from human activity be given a Nobel prize of some flavor.
This appears to be good news because it means that man made global warming may not lead to more frequent occasional extremely cold winters after all.
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-climate-extreme-winters.html
However, it says:
"..Temperature extremes will therefore become rarer as this variability is reduced. But this does not mean there will be no temper ...[text shortened]...
..."
+ there is the big thorny issue of sea level rise. So we still have got a big problem.
Originally posted by humyYou had clear alarmist views when we started debating this issue so I'm glad I was able to influence your opinion to some extent. Debating you has been interesting.
I/we have no alarmist views. Therefore, I/we have no alarmist views to be rejected by anyone.
While I was looking into the Pliocene I noticed that precipitation was high worldwide. If we were headed for a Pliocene like climate then droughts would likely decrease so I think claims of increased future droughts are rather silly. Maybe more floods, but not droughts. If anyone claims both will be severe (generally) I will be immediately skeptical of their critical thinking skills and/or intentions. It really does seem like some people are using dishonest scare tactics. Droughts, floods, out of control wildfires and even earthquakes and volcanoes. Just recently I heard the claim more people would die of heatstroke. I hardly think that should be a concern. What disasters don't some people claim will be a result? The rhetoric has gotten out of hand. People should not believe everything they hear.
Have a good day.
10 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brainthe title I gave this thread that is my thread is:
You had clear alarmist views
"Greenhouse effect may not cause greater temperature variability after all"
and my OP is in favour of the reassuring above title.
I would say and I bet everyone here but perhaps you would say my OP is an indication that I am anything else but "alarmist" but rather someone who is desperately hoping (like I actually am ) that, somehow, the future is not going to be quite so bad as science predicts after all and that I am willing to take any real evidence of that seriously.
-so no "clear" alarmist views there then.
P.S. As so often is the case these days, I didn't even bother wasting my time reading the rest of your post; it will be the same old crap; just pure condescending insults from someone who has no science credentials to someone who has science credentials. So, please, write another big insulting post so nobody reads it all and you waste your time again.
Originally posted by humyWhat is an 'alarmist'? Because Metal Brain uses this label on people who don't share his views, I suppose it is a pejorative description, isn't it?
the title I gave this thread that is my thread is:
"Greenhouse effect may not cause greater temperature variability after all"
and my OP is in favour of the reassuring above title.
I would say and I bet everyone here but perhaps you would say my OP is an indication that I am anything else but "alarmist" but rather someone who is desperately hoping (lik ...[text shortened]... , please, write another big insulting post so nobody reads it all and you waste your time again.
If I may guess: I think we have a spectre of people, with 'normal' people in the middle, and fundamentalists in its both ends. The normal people - friendly, curious, eager to learn, and have opinions about the climate in a sensible way - are in the majority of us, right?
So the alarmist are the fundamentalists in the end of the spectre, but what do we call them, equally pejorative, in the opposite end? Denialists? They are fundamentalistic too, in fact as fundamentalistic as the alarmists, as I see it.
So denialists think they are in majority because they include all people from the midpoint in their direction, but call everyone else alarmist, even if the alarmists are the extreme in the other end. The alarmists do the same, they include everyone to the middle in their group thus being the majority, calling the other ones pejoratively denialists and that they are in minority.
(I don't know if the word 'denialist' is correct, I made it up. Is there a better word?)
So when I follow the debate, it seems to be the two extrem groups, the alarmists and the denialists, who fights. Am I right in this, or am I wrong?
Metal Brain, what do you call yourself, what name do you like to call yourselves as a group?
Humy, sunhouse, et al, what do you call yourselves, what name do you like to call yourselves as a group?
Don't ask me where I belong in the spectre, I'm just an observer here...
Originally posted by FabianFnasI don't know what to call myself. I guess just "normal" will have to suffice. As far as I am aware, I have seen absolutely no evidence of anyone who I would personal describe as "alarmists" ever on this science forum or, in fact, anywhere else!
What is an 'alarmist'? Because Metal Brain uses this label on people who don't share his views, I suppose it is a pejorative description, isn't it?
If I may guess: I think we have a spectre of people, with 'normal' people in the middle, and fundamentalists in its both ends. The normal people - friendly, curious, eager to learn, and have opinions about ...[text shortened]... urselves as a group?
Don't ask me where I belong in the spectre, I'm just an observer here...
I suppose I would call an "alarmist" as someone who explicitly makes frightening predictions either based on literally NO logic or evidence whatsoever or at least based on deliberately twisted logic and/or evidence. In my mind, this is distinct from a mere "pessimist" who wouldn't necessarily make frighting predictions and would generally base his pessimistic predictions on at least some logic or evidence even if in an inadvertently biased way and/or inadvertently using flawed logic. Strange thing though, as far as I am aware, although I have met plenty of "pessimists", I have never met a single one of these "alarmist" in my whole life; so I assume these "alarmists" must be an extremely rare breed indeed!
Originally posted by FabianFnasI wouldn't say alarmist just yet but I am bloody well worried about the coming climate change.
What is an 'alarmist'? Because Metal Brain uses this label on people who don't share his views, I suppose it is a pejorative description, isn't it?
If I may guess: I think we have a spectre of people, with 'normal' people in the middle, and fundamentalists in its both ends. The normal people - friendly, curious, eager to learn, and have opinions about ...[text shortened]... urselves as a group?
Don't ask me where I belong in the spectre, I'm just an observer here...