There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[brenthutch 444]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/13/ocean-temperatures-hit-record-high-as-rate-of-heating-accelerates

Still waiting for the "more severe storms and disrupt the water cycle, meaning more floods, droughts and wildfires"

[aonsquared 9]

18 hours ago, brenthutch said:

From your link

"A growing number of citizens and communities are bringing lawsuits seeking relief from the detrimental effects of increased carbon dioxide emissions"

If the damage is so clear and widespread, and the cause so easily attributable why can't I find a single example of a successful litigant?

You are contradicting yourself again. Your silly video kept saying how complex climate models were (and true, they ARE complex and it is a difficult subject) and now you're setting up a strawman saying it should be simple?

Nice try.

Litigation takes time and is ongoing. Given how BADLY you've predicted how Tesla stock will fare, will you put your money on this?

[brenthutch 444]

2 hours ago, aonsquared said:

You are contradicting yourself again. Your silly video kept saying how complex climate models were (and true, they ARE complex and it is a difficult subject) and now you're setting up a strawman saying it should be simple?

Nice try.

Litigation takes time and is ongoing. Given how BADLY you've predicted how Tesla stock will fare, will you put your money on this?

Let me get this straight, climate models are difficult and complex yet they are infallibility accurate? (You are new here so I will let you know that the warmists on this forum claim the latter)

Given that I predicted Tesla would be bankrupt in with five years, two years ago, I still have some time. 

 

[aonsquared 9]

Just now, brenthutch said:

 the warmists on this forum claim the latter

You can't really address my arguments, so you bring other people's arguments and argue as if you're arguing against me?

That's what's called a strawman argument. Argue against what I said.

 

This is how you say so much in this topic - your arguments keep shifting, you'll put two contradictory arguments in quick succession, slide around and slip away from arguments you can't win. Then you'll do it again. You've been called a troll, but I can think of other animals that make a better analogy...

[wmw999 2,439]

Oh don’t worry. I don’t remember any claims that climate models are infallibly accurate. That so far they’ve been good, yes. And maybe even an implication that the science and data suggest they might be worth continuing to pay attention to. 

Playing with trolls is like playing “rock” with a petty manager  

Wendy P. 

[DJL 235]

12 hours ago, brenthutch said:

When folks publish wrong, misleading and false articles (An Inconvenient Truth for example) they suffer no such sanction.

Your example is someone who owns almost all assets involved in the making of that production.  What's Gore going to do, fire himself?

[aonsquared 9]

2 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Oh don’t worry. I don’t remember any claims that climate models are infallibly accurate. That so far they’ve been good, yes. And maybe even an implication that the science and data suggest they might be worth continuing to pay attention to. 

Playing with trolls is like playing “rock” with a petty manager  

Wendy P. 

Oh don't worry, he'll cherry-pick something out of the internet. Which is why I pointed out that he's running out of arguments if he has to bring other people's/imaginary arguments into the discussion.

Edited January 14, 2020 by aonsquared

[JoeWeber 2,720]

38 minutes ago, aonsquared said:

You can't really address my arguments, so you bring other people's arguments and argue as if you're arguing against me?

That's what's called a strawman argument. Argue against what I said.

 

This is how you say so much in this topic - your arguments keep shifting, you'll put two contradictory arguments in quick succession, slide around and slip away from arguments you can't win. Then you'll do it again. You've been called a troll, but I can think of other animals that make a better analogy...

Unicorn? Did I win? What's my prize?

[DJL 235]

13 hours ago, brenthutch said:

When folks publish wrong, misleading and false articles (An Inconvenient Truth for example) they suffer no such sanction.

Now, if you'd like to talk about scientists getting fired because they didn't say what the bosses wanted them to say:

The EPA fired these air pollution scientists. They’re meeting anyway.

https://grist.org/article/the-epa-fired-these-air-pollution-scientists-theyre-meeting-anyway/

[wmw999 2,439]

2 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Unicorn? Did I win? What's my prize?

Oh my! My 13-year-old niece assures me that unicorns are noble and beautiful. 

I think being called a unicorn might go to his head 

Wendy P. 

[gowlerk 2,190]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Given that I predicted Tesla would be bankrupt in with five years, two years ago, I still have some time. 

The Tesla short sellers are hurting big time.....

[brenthutch 444]

1 hour ago, aonsquared said:

You can't really address my arguments, so you bring other people's arguments and argue as if you're arguing against me?

That's what's called a strawman argument. Argue against what I said.

 

This is how you say so much in this topic - your arguments keep shifting, you'll put two contradictory arguments in quick succession, slide around and slip away from arguments you can't win. Then you'll do it again. You've been called a troll, but I can think of other animals that make a better analogy...

Just what is your argument?

[gowlerk 2,190]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

Just what is your argument?

Oh, can I answer? The argument is simple. You and the other deniers are wrong and science is right!

[brenthutch 444]

7 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Oh, can I answer? The argument is simple. You and the other deniers are wrong and science is right!

Wrong that AGW hasn't caused more floods, droughts, wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, desertification, a Midwest dust bowl, mass population evacuations, polar bear extinction, and an ice free Arctic by 2013?  It would appear from actual observation that my skepticism has been vindicated.  Disaster is always right around the corner yet never seems to quite manifest 

I get it, facts won't change any minds, y'all pray to your prophet Saint Greta on the alter of the IPCC, Climatism is your religion.

[aonsquared 9]

11 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Oh, can I answer? The argument is simple. You and the other deniers are wrong and science is right!

Reading comprehension isn't his strong suit...there's only so much simplification you can do! (well he did post a youtube video claiming people are over-simplifying the description of AGW )

Brenthutch, if you really are serious about discussing this issue please gain the proper technical background and not just propaganda websites and Youtube videos. You will need:

1. basic knowledge of differential equations (most freshman university mathematics courses will have this)
2. basic Newtonian physics (mostly covered in high school level)
3. university freshman-level thermodynamics (gas equation, blackbody spectrum)

There are lots of free online courses that teach this, and you should have covered 2) in high school. You really don't need to be an expert, but at least know the language as it's hard to "dumb it down" all the time, and then you criticise people for oversimplifying.

[gowlerk 2,190]

1 minute ago, aonsquared said:

Reading comprehension isn't his strong suit...there's only so much simplification you can do! (well he did post a youtube video claiming people are over-simplifying the description of AGW )

Brenthutch, if you really are serious about discussing this issue please gain the proper technical background and not just propaganda websites and Youtube videos. You will need:

1. basic knowledge of differential equations (most freshman university mathematics courses will have this)
2. basic Newtonian physics (mostly covered in high school level)
3. university freshman-level thermodynamics (gas equation, blackbody spectrum)

There are lots of free online courses that teach this, and you should have covered 2) in high school. You really don't need to be an expert, but at least know the language as it's hard to "dumb it down" all the time, and then you criticise people for oversimplifying.

Sigh.....the oceans are rising, the air is warming, the glaciers are disappearing.

[aonsquared 9]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Wrong that AGW hasn't caused more floods, droughts, wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, desertification, a Midwest dust bowl, mass population evacuations, polar bear extinction, and an ice free Arctic by 2013?  It would appear from actual observation that my skepticism has been vindicated.  Disaster is always right around the corner yet never seems to quite manifest 

I get it, facts won't change any minds, y'all pray to your prophet Saint Greta on the alter of the IPCC, Climatism is your religion.

Oh I should add to that, basic understanding of logic (it's a branch of mathematics, in case you don't know) and logical fallacies.

Your posts are full of that. Here, again, a setting up of a strawman argument, sprinkle in an ad-hominem attack, and no real argument (as this contradicts your earlier positions).

[aonsquared 9]

4 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Sigh.....the oceans are rising, the air is warming, the glaciers are disappearing.

Unfortunately, as I pointed out, brenthutch has the position that this is NOT happening and there is NO EVIDENCE, and at the same time, he has the position that this IS HAPPENING AND IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Edited January 14, 2020 by aonsquared

[aonsquared 9]

Facts are self-consistent no matter the frame of reference, since brenthutch has taken two simultaneous contradictory positions at the same time, whatever he is basing his belief in therefore cannot be facts.

[brenthutch 444]

Wow! A triple!  I must have hit a nerve.

[aonsquared 9]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Wow! A triple!  I must have hit a nerve.

no reply then! I must have used excessively big words.

[brenthutch 444]

1 hour ago, aonsquared said:

Unfortunately, as I pointed out, brenthutch has the position that this is NOT happening and there is NO EVIDENCE, and at the same time, he has the position that this IS HAPPENING AND IT DOESN'T MATTER.

No it’s bit more nuanced than that.  I will break it down for you.

1. No evidence of: more floods, droughts, wildfires, hurricanes,(AKA the Four Horsemen of the climate apocalypse) tornadoes, desertification, a Midwest dust bowl, mass population evacuations, polar bear extinction, or an ice free Arctic by 2013.

2. The increase in CO2 and tiny bit of warming that we have had, is not an existential threat and has thus far been been beneficial. (Less deserts, more food, (exactly the opposite of what was predicted))

3. CO2 mitigation efforts are nothing more than futile gestures that hamstring economic development and reduce our ability to deal with disasters when they do occur.  (Carbon footprint and deaths from natural disasters have an inverse relationship)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

15 hours ago, brenthutch said:

 Googled, "why would such a stupid lawsuit prevail" and that was at the top of the page

Oh, I think it looked more like this:

https://youtu.be/kRh1zXFKC_o?t=44

[ryoder 1,590]

4 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Oh, I think it looked more like this:

https://youtu.be/kRh1zXFKC_o?t=44

Omigawd.

Anyone too ignorant to even be able to point to Australia, is too ignorant to vote.

[aonsquared 9]

15 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

No it’s bit more nuanced than that.  I will break it down for you.

1. No evidence of: more floods, droughts, wildfires, hurricanes,(AKA the Four Horsemen of the climate apocalypse) tornadoes, desertification, a Midwest dust bowl, mass population evacuations, polar bear extinction, or an ice free Arctic by 2013.

2. The increase in CO2 and tiny bit of warming that we have had, is not an existential threat and has thus far been been beneficial. (Less deserts, more food, (exactly the opposite of what was predicted))

3. CO2 mitigation efforts are nothing more than futile gestures that hamstring economic development and reduce our ability to deal with disasters when they do occur.  (Carbon footprint and deaths from natural disasters have an inverse relationship)

1) Is again a strawman argument - again, quote me directly and address my arguments directly. If these are hallucinations, I would highly recommend seeing a neurologist.

2) Again, this is not consistent with your position in 1).

3) This is a fallacy called ad hoc, ergo prompter hoc.

You also seem to like declaring yourself the winner, and declaring that you're right. You seem very insecure...