Originally posted by sonhouseperhaps to Metal Brain; "worried" = "alarmist" ?
I wouldn't say alarmist just yet but I am bloody well worried about the coming climate change.
So, if you express concern of a rabid bull charging right at you, you're just a stupid ignorant whining "alarmist" who simply doesn't know what he is talking about!
Originally posted by humyEvery time I called you an alarmist you never denied it until now. That is evident to all that have been following the this subject on here. Everyone here knows you are dishonest. You told me there would be drought, floods and famine that would kill a lot of people and when I revealed that climate models are unreliable you were in denial. You still are as far as I can tell. I proved you wrong time and time again and you still pretend otherwise. FAIL!
perhaps to Metal Brain; "worried" = "alarmist" ?
So, if you express concern of a rabid bull charging right at you, you're just a stupid ignorant whining "alarmist" who simply doesn't know what he is talking about!
http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-models/
Originally posted by humyLOL!
...because I know you will only deny the honesty of my denial.
I didn't bother to read the rest of your post.
You are such a liar. You read all of my posts, even the ones not replying to you. That was obvious long ago.
There is nothing honest about you at all.
I think humy denies being an alarmist of the same reason that Metal Brain denies having OCD - both is taken as an insult, even if it could be right.
So from one end of the spectre to the other...:
* Alarmist fundamentalists (small loud minority)
* Worried (many)
* Neutral, no interest, no knowledge, don't care (too many)
* Non-worried, laissez-faire (many)
* Denialist fundamentalists (small loud minority)
...and it seems to me that this spectre is very important in USA, where both alarmists and denialists could be found.
One term I would like to be corrected in is 'denialist'. Is there a better term for this, more used?
Is Metal Brain such a denialist?
Originally posted by FabianFnasI am " * Worried (many) " about man made global warming; not "worried" for myself for it would have very little effect on me, but worried for future generations. I would be long dead before it has even a chance to get really serious so I have no reason to be "worried" for myself.
I think humy denies being an alarmist of the same reason that Metal Brain denies having OCD - both is taken as an insult, even if it could be right.
So from one end of the spectre to the other...:
* Alarmist fundamentalists (small loud minority)
* Worried (many)
* Neutral, no interest, no knowledge, don't care (too many)
* Non-worried, laissez-fair ...[text shortened]... is 'denialist'. Is there a better term for this, more used?
Is Metal Brain such a denialist?
But, I would say I am not too worried (concerning future generations ) ; I think renewables will become so much more cost effective well before it becomes what I would personally call 'too' serious that I feel ~99% sure that renewables will completely replace fossil fuel burning before then. And I feel ~99% sure that man made global warming will not melt the whole/most of the Antistatic glaciers. But arctic glaciers are more vulnerable to melting and I think that's the main risk in the reasonably creditable worst-case scenario but, even then, I think that would probably be prevented.
But, I feel there is close-enough 0% chance that humanity could go extinct in the next 1,000,000 years from man made global warming or from anything else for that matter.
So, surely then, with those above views, and taking into account I am neither trying to 'alarm' anyone nor is there any credible chance that I ever will (why would people listen more to me than others? ) , and even taking account my chosen title for this thread of mine which surely can only be described as "anti-alarmist" (certainly, the assertion; "Greenhouse effect may not cause greater temperature variability after all" cannot possibly be called "alarmist"!!! ), the average reasonable person would not describe me as " * Alarmist fundamentalists (small loud minority) ". And I am pretty sure the same goes for everyone else here on this forum without exception (so I would say there are no 'alarmists' here ) and even if they all completely disagree with me with my optimistic assessment that "there is close-enough 0% chance that humanity could go extinct in the next 1,000,000 years".
Originally posted by humySimple. You have interjected in my posts that were not even meant for you. You clearly pay close attention to everything I write here. I think it is amusing that you are denying it. 😏
How on earth would you know this even if it was true?
You are totally delusional.
Originally posted by FabianFnasSonhouse, humy and googlefudge are alarmists because they think man made global warming will cause severe natural disasters and action must be taken now to prevent many people from dying. They are also denialists because they would not accept the fact climate models are unreliable. They denied this reality because climate models are the only (alleged) evidence for future catastrophes and all 3 of them have expressed their belief for these future catastrophes. Now that they claim they are not alarmists it is clear I have shaken their faith in the climate models they defended with such zeal until now.
I think humy denies being an alarmist of the same reason that Metal Brain denies having OCD - both is taken as an insult, even if it could be right.
So from one end of the spectre to the other...:
* Alarmist fundamentalists (small loud minority)
* Worried (many)
* Neutral, no interest, no knowledge, don't care (too many)
* Non-worried, laissez-fair ...[text shortened]... is 'denialist'. Is there a better term for this, more used?
Is Metal Brain such a denialist?
Denialist is a vague term. Everybody is a denialist about something. Most people would find it difficult to maintain I am denying that much about this subject. I don't deny climate change. I don't don't deny man is a factor in recent climate change. More importantly, I have never denied these things.
I have expressed doubt that man is the primary cause of climate change. I have stated that climate models are unreliable and have failed in their predictions and I have proved that. I don't think any of those things makes me a denier though. Most people think of a denier (in this context) as a person who denies facts. I have not done that.
Climate change resulting in future catastrophes is an alarmist view and Sonhouse, humy and googlefudge have all made past statements that prove they believed the predictions of future catastrophes and made efforts to defend that position. If they continue to deny they are alarmists I will quote some of their past posts from other threads to prove they are flip flopping on this issue. It will then be obvious to all that they were wrong and are just trying to avoid admitting it. I think most people on here already realize that though. It would be more for the newbies.
When someone claims millions of people will die from future catastrophes caused by climate change I remember it. One person even said billions at one point. It is hard to deny being an alarmist after that. I can show who the real denialists are.
edit:
"* Alarmist fundamentalists (small loud minority)"
Alarmists are a majority, not a small minority as you claim. The PBS Newshour has a poll that demonstrates that.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/poll-think-courts-able-hold-states-accountable-climate-change/
Anybody who thinks states should be sued because this issue is so urgent has to be an alarmist.
Originally posted by Metal BrainHow much time do you think will go by before this issue is settled one way or another?
Sonhouse, humy and googlefudge are alarmists because they think man made global warming will cause severe natural disasters and action must be taken now to prevent many people from dying. They are also denialists because they would not accept the fact climate models are unreliable. They denied this reality because climate models are the only (alleged) ev ...[text shortened]...
Anybody who thinks states should be sued because this issue is so urgent has to be an alarmist.
And, are you prepared to be wrong?
Originally posted by Metal BrainI take it then the not-so-subtle distinction between someone reading some of your post/posts and reading all of your post/posts is simply beyond your comprehension because you simply haven't got the minimal intelligence required to understand the difference between the very simple concept of "some" and the very simple concept of "all".
You have interjected in my posts that were not even meant for you. You clearly pay close attention to everything I write here.
Someone read some of your post/posts doesn't logically imply he must have read all of your post/posts. I have read some of your posts, not all, and, contrary to your delusional mind, me reading some of your posts is not at all evidence that I must have read all of them. You are clearly completely delusional.
Here is another cautiously moderately optimistic research result in addition to my OP one:
http://phys.org/news/2015-04-global-moderate-empirical.html
"...A new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records suggests global warming is not progressing as fast as it would under the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
"Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now," said Patrick T. Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment. "But this could change."...
...
...
"By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the 'big picture' right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles," Brown said. "Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013."
Further comparative analysis of the models revealed another intriguing insight.
"Statistically, it's pretty unlikely that an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century, would occur if the underlying human-caused warming was progressing at a rate as fast as the most severe IPCC projections," Brown said. "Hiatus periods of 11 years or longer are more likely to occur under a middle-of-the-road scenario."
Under the IPCC's middle-of-the-road scenario, there was a 70 percent likelihood that at least one hiatus lasting 11 years or longer would occur between 1993 and 2050, Brown said. "That matches up well with what we're seeing."
There's no guarantee, however, that this rate of warming will remain steady in coming years, Li stressed. "Our analysis clearly shows that we shouldn't expect the observed rates of warming to be constant. They can and do change."
..."